WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/AB/7 
23 January 2007 
 (07-0259) 
  
  
 
     
 
    
 
  
APPELLATE BODY 
 
 
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2006 
  
 
  
JANUARY 2007 
   
  
 
     
 
    
 
    
 
    
The Appellate Body welcomes comments and inquiries  
regarding this report at the  
following address: 
 
 
Appellate Body Secretariat 
World Trade Organization 
rue de Lausanne 154 
1211 Geneva, Switzerland 
email:  appellatebody.registry@wto.org 
<www.wto.org/appellatebody> 
 
 
 
 
 WT/AB/7 
Page i 
 
 
CONTENTS 
  
 Abbreviations  Used  in this Annual  Report ..................................................................................ii  
 I.
 Composition of the Appellate Body............................................................................................1  
 
II. Appeals........................................................................................................................ ................3  
 III.
 Appellate Bo dy Reports ......................................................................................................... .....4 
 
A. Agreements Covered ......................................................................................................5  
B. Findings and Conclusions .............................................................................................6  
 IV.
 Participants and Third Participants ...........................................................................................1 0 
 
V. Working Procedures for Appellate Review ..............................................................................13  
 VI.
 Arbitrations under Article  21.3(c) of the DSU..........................................................................15  
 VII.
 Technical As sistance........................................................................................................... ......17  
 
VIII. Other Developments ............................................................................................................. ....17  
 
A. WTO Appellate Body Repertory of Reports and Awards 1995–2005 ..........................17  
B. Tenth Anniversary Conferences ...................................................................................18  
C. WTO Internship Programme ........................................................................................19  
D. Other Activities ............................................................................................................19  
  ANNEX 1 Former Appellate Body Members and Chairpersons ...................................................20 
ANNEX 2 Appeals Filed:  1995–2006 ..........................................................................................21 
ANNEX 3 Percentage of Panel Reports Appeal ed by Year of Adoption:  1995–2006 .................22 
ANNEX 4 WTO Agreements Addressed in Appe llate Body Reports Circulated through 
2006........................................................................................................................... ...23 
ANNEX 5 Participants and Third Par ticipants in Appeals: 1995–2006 ........................................24 
ANNEX 6 Appellate Body Secretariat Participation in the WTO Technical Assistance 
and Training Plan 2006 ................................................................................................37 
ANNEX 7 Programmes of Tenth Anniversary Conferences Held in 2006....................................39 
ANNEX 8 Table of WTO Dispute Settlement Reports and Arbitration Awards:   
1995–2006....................................................................................................................45  
 WT/AB/7 
Page ii  
 
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS ANNUAL REPORT 
 
 
Abbreviation Description 
ADB Asian Development Bank 
Anti-Dumping Agreement Agreement on Implementati on of Article VI of the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade 1994   
ATC Agreement on Textiles and Clothing  
DSB Dispute Settlement Body  
DSU Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of 
Disputes  
GATS General Agreement on Trade in Services   
GATT 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  
Import Licensing  Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures   
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement 
Repertory WTO Appellate Body Repertory of Reports and Awards 1995–2005 
SCM Agreement  Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  
SPS  Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
TBT  Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade   
TRIMs  Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures   
TRIPS  Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights   
WCO World Customs Organization 
Working Procedures Working Procedures for Appellate Review , WT/AB/WP/5,  
4 January 2005 
WTO World Trade Organization 
WTO Agreement Marra kesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization  
 
  WT/AB/7 
Page 1 
 
 
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
APPELLATE BODY  
 
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2006 
 
 
 
 This report provides a summary of the activities undertaken in 2006 by the Appellate Body of 
the World Trade Organization and its Secretariat.  
  
I. Composition of the Appellate Body 
 The Appellate Body is composed of seven Members appointed to four-year terms by the 
WTO Dispute Settlement Body.  Table 1 shows the current composition of the Appellate Body and 
the respective terms of office of its Members. 
  
TABLE 1:  COMPOSITION OF TH E APPELLATE BODY IN 2006 
 
Name Nationality Term(s) of office 
Georges Michel Abi-Saab  Egypt 2000–2004 
2004–2008 
Luiz Olavo Baptista Brazil 2001–2005 
2005–2009 
Arumugamangalam Venkatachalam Ganesan  India 2000–2004 
2004–2008 
Merit E. Janow United States 2003–2007 
Giorgio Sacerdoti  Italy 2001–2005 
2005–2009 
Yasuhei Taniguchi Japan 2000–2003 
2003–2007 
David Unterhalter South Africa 2006–2009 
  
 A.V. Ganesan served as Chairman of th e Appellate Body from 17 December 2005 to 
16 December 2006.
1  On 23 November 2006, Appellate B ody Members elected Giorgio Sacerdoti, 
pursuant to Rule 5(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , to serve as Chairman of the 
Appellate Body from 17 December 2006 to 16 December 2007.2  
 
                                                      
1WT/DSB/40. 
2WT/DSB/41. WT/AB/7 
Page 2  
 
Sadly, John Lockhart, one of the Members of the Appellate Body, passed away on 13 January 
2006.  Mr. Lockhart was appointed to the Appella te Body in December 2001.  During his term,  
he served on eleven Appellate Body Divisions a nd acted as arbitrator in four arbitrations under 
Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes .  
Memorial services in honour of Mr. Lockhart were  held on 19 January and 2 March in Geneva, 
Switzerland, and on 10 February in Sydney, Australia. 
 
Born in Australia on 2 October 1935, John Lo ckhart graduated in Arts and Law from the 
University of Sydney in 1958.  Mr. Lockhart's professional experience included Queen's Counsel in Australia and the United Kingdom Privy Council (1973–1978), Judge, Federal Court of Australia 
(1978–1999), Deputy President of the Australian Co pyright Tribunal (1981–1997), and President of 
the Australian Competition Tribunal (1982–1999).  He also served as Executive Director at the Asian 
Development Bank in the Philippines from July 1999 to 2002, where he worked with developing 
member countries on poverty alleviation.  Prior to joining the ADB, he was a Judicial Reform 
Specialist at the World Bank. 
 
 David Unterhalter was appointed Appellate Body Member by the DSB on 31 July 2006, and was sworn-in on 28 September 2006.
3  He replaced the late John Loc khart.  Mr. Unterhalter will serve 
for the remainder of the term of office that was held by Mr. Lockhart, that is, until 11 December 
2009.4   
 
 Born in South Africa on 18 November 1958, David Unterhalter holds degrees from Trinity 
College, Cambridge, the University of the Witw atersrand, and University College Oxford.  
Mr. Unterhalter has been a Professor of Law at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa 
since 1998, and from 2000 to 2006, he was the Direct or of the Mandela Institute, University of the 
Witwatersrand, an institute focusing on global law.  
 
 Mr. Unterhalter is a member of the Johannes burg Bar.  As a practising advocate, he has 
appeared in a large number of cases in the fields of trade law, competition law, constitutional law,  
and commercial law.  His experience includes representing different parties in anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases.  He has acted as an advisor to the South African Department of Trade and 
Industry.  In addition, he has served on a number of WTO dispute settlement panels.  Mr. Unterhalter 
has published widely in the fields of  public law and competition law.  
 
The Appellate Body receives legal and admi nistrative support from the Appellate Body 
Secretariat, in accordance with Article 17.7 of th e DSU.  The Secretariat currently comprises a 
Director and a team of nine lawyers, one administrative assistant, and three support staff.  Werner 
Zdouc replaced Valerie Hughes as Director of the Ap pellate Body Secretariat as of 1 January 2006. 
  A list of former Appellate Body Members a nd Chairpersons is provided in Annex 1. 
 
                                                     
 
3WT/DSB/M/218. 
4In accordance with Article 17.2 the DSU. WT/AB/7 
Page 3 
 
 
II. Appeals  
 Under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures , an appeal is commenced by giving notice in 
writing to the DSB and filing a Notice of Appeal with  the Appellate Body Secretariat.  Rule 23(1) 
provides for a party to the dispute other than the orig inal appellant to join the appeal or appeal on the 
basis of other alleged errors by filing a Notice of Other Appeal.    
Five appeals were filed in 2006, three of which included an "other appeal".  Information about 
these appeals is provided in Table 2.  
 
TABLE 2:  APPEALS FILED IN 2006 
 
Panel Reports 
appealed Date of 
Appeal Notice of 
Appeal 
document 
number Appellant 5 Notice of 
Other Appeal 
document 
number Other 
Appellant 6 
US – Softwood 
Lumber VI  
(Article 21.5 – Canada) 13 January 
2006 WT/DS277/16 Canada - - - - - - 
US – Zeroing (EC) 17 January 
2006 WT/DS294/12 European 
Communities WT/DS294/13 United States 
US – Softwood 
Lumber V  
(Article 21.5 – Canada) 17 May  
2006 WT/DS264/25 Canada - - - - - - 
EC – Selected Customs 
Matters 14 August 
2006 WT/DS315/11 United States WT/DS315/12 European 
Communities 
US – Zeroing (Japan) 11 October 
2006 WT/DS322/12 Japan WT/DS322/13 United States 
 
  Information on the number of appeals filed each year since 1995 is provided in Annex 2.    
 Two of the appeals filed in 2006 concerned Panel Reports circulated to WTO Members in 
2005.
7  Six Panel Reports were circulated in 2006.8  The 60-day deadlines for adoption of two of the 
six Panel Reports circulated in  2006 do not expire until 2007.9  In total, five of a possible six appeals 
were filed in 2006—that is, 83 per cent.   
                                                      
5Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures . 
6Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures . 
7The Panel Reports in  US – Softwood Lumber VI (Article 21.5 – Canada) and US – Zeroing (EC)  were 
circulated to WTO Members on 15 November 2005 and 31 October 2005, respectively. 
8This does not include the Report of the Panel in Japan – Quotas on Laver .  That Report merely states 
that the parties in the dispute had reached a mutually agreed solution. 
9The Panel Reports in US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews (Article 21.5 – Argentina) and 
Chile – Price Band System (Article 21.5 – Argentina) were circulated to WTO Members on 30 November 2006 
and 8 December 2006, respectively. WT/AB/7 
Page 4  
 
Figure 1:  Percentage of Panel Reports appealed 1996–2006
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 
Figure 1 shows the percentage of Panel Reports appealed since 1996.  No Panel Reports were 
appealed in 1995.   
 
    
 
    
 
     
 
   
 
 
Annex 3 summarizes the percentage of Panel Re ports appealed by year of adoption from 1995 
through 2006.  The overall average of Panel Reports  that have been appealed is 68 per cent.   
   
III. Appellate Body Reports 
 Six Appellate Body Reports were circulated during 2006, two of which related to Notices of 
Appeal filed in 2005.10  As of the end of 2006, the Appellate  Body had circulated a total of 79 
Reports.11  Table 3 provides further information on the A ppellate Body Reports circulated in 2006.   
 
                                                      
10The Notices of Appeal in  US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC II)   and  Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks  were 
filed on 14 November 2005 and 6 December 2005, respectively. 
11The Panel Report in US – Zeroing (Japan)  was appealed on 11 October 2006.  The Appellate Body 
Report in that appeal was circulated to WTO Members on 9 January 2007. 100% 
 80% 
 60% 
 40% 
 20% WT/AB/7 
Page 5 
 
 
TABLE 3:  APPELLATE BODY REPO RTS CIRCULATED IN 2006 
 
Case Document number Date circulated Date adopted by DSB 
US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC II) WT/DS108/AB/RW2 13 February 2006 14 March 2006 
Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks WT/DS308/AB/R 6 March 2006 24 March 2006 
US – Softwood Lumber VI  
(Article 21.5 – Canada) WT/DS277/AB/RW 13 April 2006 9 May 2006 
US – Zeroing (EC) WT/DS294/AB/R 18 April 2006 9 May 2006 
US – Softwood Lumber V  
(Article 21.5 – Canada) WT/DS264/AB/RW 15 August 2006 1 September 2006 
EC – Selected Customs Matters WT/DS315/AB/R 13 November  2006 11 December 2006 
 
 
A. Agreements Covered 
 The following table shows which WTO agreements  were addressed in the six Appellate Body 
Reports circulated in 2006. 
 
 
TABLE 4:  WTO AGREEMENTS ADDRESSED IN APPELLATE BODY REPORTS  
CIRCULATED IN 2006 
 
Case Document number WTO Agreement(s) covered 
US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC II) WT/DS108/AB/RW2 SCM Agreement 
DSU 
Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks WT/DS308/AB/R GATT 1994 
DSU 
US – Softwood Lumber VI  
(Article 21.5 – Canada) WT/DS277/AB/RW Anti-Dumping Agreement 
SCM Agreement 
DSU 
US – Zeroing (EC) WT/DS294/AB/R Anti-Dumping Agreement 
GATT 1994 
DSU 
US – Softwood Lumber V  
(Article 21.5 – Canada) WT/DS264/AB/RW Anti-Dumping Agreement 
EC – Selected Customs Matters WT/DS315/AB/R GATT 1994 
DSU 
  WT/AB/7 
Page 6  
 
01020304050607080DSU
WTO Agreement
GATT 1994
Agriculture
SPS
ATC
TBT
Anti-Dumping
Import Licensing
SCM
Safeguards
GATS
TRIPSFigure 2 shows the frequency with which the WT O agreements have been addressed in the 79 
Appellate Body Reports circulated through 2006.      
 
    
 
    
 
     
 
  
Annex 4 contains a table listing the WTO ag reements addressed in appeals from 1996  
through  2006.  
 
 
B. Findings and Conclusions 
 Below are the summaries of the Appellate Body's findings and conclusions in the six 
Appellate Body Reports circulated in 2006.    
 Appellate Body Report,  US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC II) , WT/DS108/AB/RW2  
 
 The Appellate Body found that Article 6.2 of the DSU was applicable in compliance proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, but that Article 6.2 needs to be interpreted in the 
light of Article 21.5 and, consequently, that its  requirements need to be adapted to compliance 
proceedings.    
 The Appellate Body held that, in order to co mply with the requirements of Article 6.2 in 
compliance proceedings, the complaining part y must mention in its panel request the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB that allege dly have not been implemented and identify the 
measures taken to implement the DSB recommenda tions and rulings, as well as any omissions or 
deficiencies of those measures, or state that no im plementing measures at all have been taken by the 
implementing Member.  When measures to comply have been taken, the complaining party must also 
specify which inconsistencies with WTO law found in the previous proceedings have not been 
rectified, or whether those measures have broug ht about new inconsistencies with WTO law. 
  The Appellate Body found that it was not de terminative in this case whether the first 
Article 21.5 panel had made a new reco mmendation under Article 4.7 of the  SCM Agreement   
specifically regarding the extraterritorial income ta x exclusion.  According to the Appellate Body, an Figure 2: Frequency of WTO agreements addressed in the 79 
                Appellate Body Reports circulated through 2006 WT/AB/7 
Page 7 
 
 
Article 4.7 recommendation adopted by the DSB from an original proceeding remains in effect—even 
throughout several Article 21.5 proceedings—until the WTO Member concerned has withdrawn fully 
the subsidies found to be prohibited in the original  proceeding.  The Appellate Body held that, by 
virtue of the Article 4.7 recommendation adopted by  the DSB in the original proceeding, the United 
States continued to be under an obligation to withdraw fully the prohibited "Foreign Sales 
Corporation" and extraterritorial income subsidies. 
  
 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks , WT/DS308/AB/R 
 
 The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding  that, under the DSU, the Panel did not have 
discretion to decline to exercise its jurisdiction in the case brought before it.  The Appellate Body 
found that, although WTO panels have "certain pow ers ... inherent in their adjudicative function", 
they do not have the authority to decline to rule on the entirety of claims before them in a dispute, 
once jurisdiction has been validly established.  In  its reasoning, the Appellate Body noted that 
Article 11 of the DSU obliges a panel to make an objec tive assessment of the matter before it, and that 
a panel would not fulfil that obligation if it declin ed to exercise validly established jurisdiction and 
abstained from making any finding on the matter before it.   However, the Appellate Body stated that it 
was not expressing any views as to whether there may be other circumstances in which legal 
impediments to the exercise of a panel's jurisdic tion would exist that would preclude a panel from 
ruling on the merits of a claim before it.     The Appellate Body noted that Mexico did not argue that the subject-matter or the respective 
positions of the parties in this case were identi cal to those under the NAFTA.  Nor did Mexico 
identify a legal basis that would allow it to raise, in a WTO dispute settlement proceeding, the market 
access claims it was pursuing under the NAFTA.  Fu rthermore, it was undisputed that no NAFTA 
panel had yet decided the "broader dispute" to wh ich Mexico had alluded.  Also, Mexico expressly 
stated that the so-called "exclusion clause" of Artic le 2005.6 of the NAFTA had not been "exercised". 
 
 In addition, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that Mexico's measures did not 
constitute measures "to secure compliance with la ws or regulations" within the meaning of 
Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.  The Appellate B ody agreed with the Panel's conclusion that 
Article XX(d) is not available to justify WTO-inc onsistent measures that seek "to secure compliance" 
by another WTO Member with that other Me mber's non-WTO international obligations.  
Nevertheless, several aspects of the Appellate Body's reasoning differed from the Panel's own 
reasoning.  First, the Appellate Body concluded that the term "laws or regulations" covers rules that 
form part of the domestic legal system of a WT O Member, including rules deriving from international 
agreements that have been incorporated into th e domestic legal system of a WTO Member, or have 
direct effect according to that WTO Member's legal system.  Secondly, the Appellate Body found that Article XX(d) does not require the "use of coercion", or  that the measure sought to be justified results 
in securing compliance with absolute certainty.  Ra ther, Article XX(d) requires that the measure be 
designed "to secure compliance with laws or regul ations which are not inconsistent with the 
provisions" of the GATT 1994.  Finally, the Appellate  Body considered that the Panel wrongly relied 
on the Appellate Body Report in US – Gambling  in interpreting the term "to secure compliance" in 
Article XX(d), because that appeal  did not address the same issue. 
 
 In the light of its finding that Mexico's  measures did not constitute measures "to secure 
compliance with laws or regulations" under Article  XX(d), the Appellate Body did not consider it 
necessary to complete the analysis by examining whether Mexico's measures were "necessary" within 
the meaning of Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 and met the requirements of the chapeau of 
Article XX.  The Appellate Body, moreover, rejected Mexico's claim that the Panel had failed to make 
an objective assessment of the facts, as required by Ar ticle 11 of the DSU, in finding that Mexico had 
not established that its measures contributed to securing compliance in the dispute at hand. WT/AB/7 
Page 8  
 
 Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber VI (Article 21.5 – Canada), 
WT/DS277/AB/RW 
 
 The Appellate Body reviewed the relevant provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and the 
SCM Agreement  for purposes of ascertaining the proper standard of review applicable in cases 
involving a threat of injury determination.  It clar ified that a panel charged with reviewing the factual 
basis for a threat of injury determination must determine whether the investigating authority has 
provided "a reasoned and ad equate explanation" of: (a)  how individual pieces of evidence can be 
reasonably relied on in support of particular infere nces, and how the evidence in the record supports 
its factual findings; (b)  how the facts in the record , rather than allegation, conjecture, or remote 
possibility, support and provide a basis for the overall threat of injury determination; (c)  how its 
projections and assumptions show a high degree of likelihood that the anticipated injury will 
materialize in the near future;  and (d)  how it exam ined alternative explanati ons and interpretations of 
the evidence and why it chose to reject or discount such alternatives in coming to its conclusions. 
  The Appellate Body found that the Panel had act ed inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU 
because it articulated and applied an improper standa rd of review in its assessment of the United 
States International Trade Commission's Section 129 Determination at issue in this case.  
Consequently, the Appellate Body reversed the Pa nel's findings that the Section 129 Determination 
was not inconsistent with the obligations regard ing threat of material injury, causation, and non-
attribution of injury caused by other f actors under Articles 3.5 and 3.7 of the  Anti-Dumping 
Agreement   and Articles 15.5 and 15.7 of the  SCM Agreement , and also reversed the Panel's finding 
that the United States had implem ented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in the original 
dispute.  The Appellate Body was unable to comple te the analysis and determine whether the Section 
129 Determination is consistent or  inconsistent with the United St ates' obligations under Articles 3.5 
and 3.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Articles 15.5 and 15.7 of the  SCM Agreement   due to 
the absence of pertinent factual findings by the Panel and undisputed facts in the Panel record. 
  
 Appellate Body Report, US – Zeroing (EC) , WT/DS294/AB/R 
 
 The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's findi ngs that the zeroing methodology, as applied by 
the United States when assessing final anti-dumping dut y liability for particular importers in the 
administrative reviews at issue, was not inconsistent with Article 9.3 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement 
and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.  According to the Appellate Body, Article 9.3 and Article VI:2 
require investigating authorities to ensure that th e total amount of anti-dumping duties collected on all 
entries of a product from a given exporter or forei gn producer shall not exceed the margin of dumping 
established for that exporter or foreign producer.  The Appellate Body found that the United States 
acted inconsistently with this requirement because,  by disregarding the results of comparisons for 
which the export price of specific transactions exceeded the average nor mal value, it assessed  
anti-dumping duties in excess of the foreign produ cers' or exporters' margins of dumping.  The 
Appellate Body also declared moot several conseque ntial findings of the Panel that were related to 
those findings of the Panel that the Appellate Body  had reversed.  In add ition, the Appellate Body 
held that the Panel had not erred in exerci sing judicial economy on a number of claims. 
 
The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the zeroing methodology, as it relates to 
weighted average-to-weighted average comparisons  of normal value and export prices in original 
investigations, is inconsistent as such with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  The 
Appellate Body emphasized, however, that when br inging a challenge against a "rule or norm" of 
general and prospective application (such as the " zeroing methodology") that is not expressed in the 
form of a written document, a complaining party must clearly establish, through arguments and 
supporting evidence, that the alleged "rule or norm " is attributable to the responding Member, its 
precise content, and that it has general and prospec tive application.  Finally, the Appellate Body WT/AB/7 
Page 9 
 
 
rejected claims that the Panel had failed to make an objective assessment of the matter as required by 
Article 11 of the DSU.   
 Appellate Body Report,  US – Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 – Can ada), 
WT/DS264/AB/RW 
 
The Appellate Body reversed th e Panel's finding that the use of zeroing in the United States 
Department of Commerce's Section 129 Determination at issue in this case was not inconsistent with 
the transaction-to-transaction comparison methodology set out in Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement .  In this regard, the Appellate Body disagr eed with the Panel's view that, because the 
phrase "all comparable export transactions" appears only in relation to the weighted average-to-
weighted average comparison methodology in Article  2.4.2, the term "margins of dumping" must 
have a different meaning in the context of the tr ansaction-to-transaction comparison methodology.  
The Appellate Body explained that transactions may be divided into groups under the weighted 
average-to-weighted average comparison methodolog y and, therefore, the phrase "all comparable 
export transactions" implies the requirement that all comparable export transactions corresponding to 
a group must not be left out arbitrarily.  The Appe llate Body reasoned that, because transactions are 
not divided into groups under the transaction-to -transaction comparison methodology, such a scenario 
does not arise in the same way under that methodology, and the phrase "all comparable export 
transactions" is not pertinent to it.  According to  the Appellate Body, the transaction-to-transaction 
methodology in Article 2.4.2 involves a multi-step  calculation exercise in which the results of 
transaction-specific comparisons are inputs that are aggregated in order to establish the margin of 
dumping for each exporter or foreign producer.  The Appellate Body found that the margins of 
dumping established under this methodology are the results of the aggregation of the transaction-
specific comparisons of export prices and normal va lue, and that, in aggregating these results, an 
investigating authority must consider the results of  all of the comparisons and may not disregard the 
results of comparisons in which export prices are above normal value.   
 
In addition, the Appellate Body reversed the Pa nel's finding that the use of zeroing in the 
Section 129 Determination was not in consistent with the "fair comparison" requirement in Article 2.4 
of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement .  The Appellate Body stated that the term "fair" connotes 
impartiality, even-handedness, or lack of bias.  A ccording to the Appellate Body, the use of zeroing 
under the transaction-to-transaction comparison methodol ogy is inconsistent with Article 2.4 because 
it distorts the prices of certain export transactions, which are not considered at their real value, 
artificially inflates the magnitude of dumping, and,  therefore, results in higher margins of dumping 
and makes a positive determination of dumping more likely.     
 Appellate Body Report, EC – Selected Customs Matters , WT/DS315/AB/R 
 
The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's fi nding that the United States was precluded from 
challenging certain instruments of the European Co mmunities customs legislation listed in the request 
for the establishment of a panel as a whole or overa ll.  However, the Appellate Body was unable to 
complete the analysis on this claim because the Pa nel's "general observations" about the role of a 
number of institutions and mechanisms in the Eur opean Communities provided an insufficient factual 
basis for assessing whether the Eur opean Communities failed to ensure  uniform administration of its 
customs legislation.  The Appellate Body reversed  the Panel's finding that, when a violation of 
Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994 is being claimed, the "measure at issue" must be the "manner of 
administration" of a legal instrument.  Instead, th e Appellate Body found that a WTO Member is not 
precluded from setting out in a panel request any act or omission attributable to another WTO 
Member as the measure at issue.  The Appellate B ody upheld the Panel's interpretation that steps and 
acts of administration that pre-date or post-date the establishment of a panel may be relevant in WT/AB/7 
Page 10  
 
determining whether a violation of Article X:3(a)  of the GATT 1994 exists at the time of panel 
establishment.  
Regarding the requirement of uniform administ ration in Article X:3(a), the Appellate Body 
found that a distinction must be made between the legal instrument being administered and the legal 
instrument that regulates the application or implem entation of that instrument.  The Appellate Body 
reversed the Panel's finding that, without exception,  Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994 relates to the 
application of laws and regulations, but not to la ws and regulations as such.  Instead, the Appellate 
Body found that legal instruments that regulate the application or implementa tion of laws, regulations, 
decisions, and administrative rulings of the kind described in Article X:1 of the GATT 1994 can be 
challenged under Article X:3(a). 
 
With respect to the review mechanisms for ad ministrative action relating to customs matters, 
the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that  Article X:3(b) of the GATT 1994 does not require 
that first instance review decisi ons must govern the practice of  all  the agencies entrusted with 
administrative enforcement  throughout the territory  of a particular WTO Member. 
  
IV. Participants and Third Participants 
 Table 5 below lists the WTO Members that part icipated in appeals for which an Appellate 
Body Report was circulated during 2006.  It distin guishes between a Member that filed a Notice of 
Appeal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures and a Member that filed an appeal pursuant to 
Rule 23(1) (known as the "other appellant").  Rule 23(1) provides that "a party to the dispute other 
than the original appellant may join in that appeal or appeal on the basis of other alleged errors in the 
issues of law covered in the panel report and legal in terpretations developed by the panel".  Under the 
Working Procedures , parties wishing to appeal a panel report pursuant to Rule 23(1) are required to 
file a Notice of Other Appeal within 12  days after the filing of the Notice of Appeal. 
 
 Table 5 also identifies those Members who partic ipated in appeals as a third participant under 
paragraph (1), (2), or (4) of Rule 24 of the Working Procedures .  Under Rule 24(1), a WTO Member 
that was a third party to the panel proceedings ma y file a written submission as a third participant 
within 25 days of the filing of the Notice of App eal.  Pursuant to Rule 24(2), a Member who was a 
third party to the panel proceedings that has not f iled a written submission may, within 25 days of the 
filing of the Notice of Appeal, notify its intention to appear at the oral hearing and whether it intends 
to make an oral statement at the hearing.  Rule  24(4) provides that a Member who was party to the 
panel proceedings and that has neither filed a writte n submission in accordance with Rule 24(1), nor 
given notice in accordance with Rule 24(2), may notify its intention to appear at the oral hearing and 
request to make an oral statement. WT/AB/7 
Page 11 
 
 
TABLE 5:  PARTICIPANTS AND TH IRD PARTICIPANTS IN APPEALS 
FOR WHICH AN APPELLATE BODY REPORT WAS CIRCULATED IN 2006 
 
Third Participant(s) 
Case Appellant 12 Other 
Appellant 13 Appellee 14 
Rule 24(1) Rule 24(2) Rule 24(4) 
US – FSC  
(Article 21.5 – EC II) United States European 
Communities European 
Communities 
United States Australia 
Brazil China  
 - - - 
Mexico – Taxes on Soft 
Drinks Mexico - - - United States China 
European 
Communities 
Japan Canada 
Guatemala 
 - - - 
US – Softwood 
Lumber VI  
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Canada - - - United States European 
Communities China - - - 
US – Zeroing (EC) European 
Communities United States United States 
European 
Communities Japan 
Brazil 
China 
Korea 
Mexico 
Norway 
Chinese 
Taipei Argentina 
Hong Kong, 
China 
India - - - 
US – Softwood 
Lumber V  
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Canada - - - United States European 
Communities 
Japan 
New Zealand 
Thailand China 
India - - - 
EC – Selected Customs 
Matters United States European 
Communities European 
Communities 
United States Japan 
Korea Argentina 
Australia 
Brazil 
China 
Hong Kong, 
China 
India 
Chinese 
Taipei - - - 
 
                                                      
12Pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures . 
13Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures . 
14Pursuant to Rule 22 or Rule 23(3) of the Working Procedures . WT/AB/7 
Page 12  
 
020406080100120140160180
Appellants Other Appellants Appellees Third ParticipantsAppearances before the Appellate Body
Developed Countries Developing CountriesA total of 17 WTO Members appeared at least once as appellant, other appellant, appellee, or 
third participant in appeals for wh ich an Appellate Body Report was ci rculated during 2006.  Of these 
17 WTO Members, 7 were developed country Members,  and 10 were developing country Members.    
  Of the 53 total appearances by WTO Members before the Appellate Body during 2006, 
29 were by developed country Members and 24 by developing country Members.  Developed country 
Members made 5 appearances as appellants, 3 as ot her appellants, 9 as appellees, and 12 as third 
participants.  Developing country Members made one  appearance as appellant and 23 appearances as 
third participants.    
Figure 3 shows the ratio of developed country  Members to developing country Members in 
terms of appearances made as appe llant, other appellant, appellee, a nd third participant in appellate 
proceedings between 1996 and 2006.    
  
     
 
    
 
     
 
    
 Annex 5 provides a statistical summary and de tails on Member participation as appellants, 
other appellants, appellees, and thir d participants in appeals for whic h an Appellate Body Report was 
circulated between 1996 and 2006.   Figure 3:  Member particip ation in appeals 1996–2006 WT/AB/7 
Page 13 
 
 
V. Working Procedures for Appellate Review 
No amendments were made to the Working Procedures during 2006.  The current version of 
the Working Procedures  is contained in document WT/AB/WP /5, which was circulated to WTO 
Members on 4 January 2005.  A list of the docum ents relating to previous versions of the Working 
Procedures  is provided in Table 6. 
 
 
TABLE 6:  CONSOLIDATED AND REVISED VERSIO NS OF THE  
WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW   
 
Document 
number Effective date Rules amended Working documents/ 
Explanatory texts Principal DSB 
meeting(s) at which 
amendments were 
discussed, Minutes 
WT/AB/WP/1 15 February 1996 N/ A WT/AB/WP/W/1 31 January 1996, 
WT/DSB/M/10 and 
21 February 1996, 
WT/DSB/M/11 
WT/AB/WP/2 28 February 1997 Rule 5(2) 
and Annex II WT/AB/WP/W/2, 
WT/AB/WP/W/3 25 February 1997, 
WT/DSB/M/29 
WT/AB/WP/3 24 January 2002 Rule 5(2) WT/AB/WP/W/4, 
WT/AB/WP/W/5 24 July 2001,  
WT/DSB/M/107 
WT/AB/WP/4 1 May 2003 Rules 24 and 27(3),  
with consequential 
amendments to Rules 1, 16, 
18, 19, and 28, and Annex I WT/AB/WP/W/6, 
WT/AB/WP/W/7 23 October 2002, 
WT/DSB/M/134 
WT/AB/WP/5 1 January 2005 Rules 1, 18, 20, 21,  
23, 23 bis, 27, and Annexes 
I and III WT/AB/WP/W/8, 
WT/AB/WP/W/9 19 May 2004, 
WT/DSB/M/169 
 
 
Procedural issues were raised in several a ppeals for which an Appellate Body Report was 
circulated during 2006.  These procedural issues are summarized in the following paragraphs.   
  
 US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC II)  
  
John Lockhart was prevented from continuing to serve on the Division for serious personal 
reasons falling within Rule 12 of the Working Procedures .  In accordance with Rule 13 of the 
Working Procedures , the Appellate Body selected Merit E. Janow to replace Mr. Lockhart on that 
Division.15 
 
                                                      
15Appellate Body Report, US – FSC (Article 21.5 – EC II) , para. 11. WT/AB/7 
Page 14  
 
 Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks  
 Mexico submitted a request to the Appellate Body to correct certain clerical errors in its 
appellant's submission.  The Division invited the part icipants and the third participants to comment in 
writing on the request.  The United States responded that, although some of the requested corrections were not "clearly clerical" within the meaning of Rule 18(5) of the Working Procedures , "[i]n the 
circumstances of this dispute", the United States did not object to Mexico's request.  No other 
comments were received.  The Division authorized Mexico to correct the clerical errors in its 
appellant's submission, but emphasized, however, that it had not been requested to and did not make a 
finding as to "whether all of the corrections requested  by Mexico [were] 'clerical' within the meaning 
of Rule 18(5) of the Working Procedures ."
16   
 The Appellate Body also received an  amicus curiae   brief from Cámara Nacional de las 
Industrias Azucarera y Alcoholera  (National Chamber of the Sugar and Alcohol Industries) of 
Mexico.  At the oral hearing, Mexico stated that its  arguments were set out in  its appellant's and oral 
submissions, however, it would not object should the Appellate Body decide to accept the  amicus  
brief.  The United States noted that the  amicus  brief had been received late in the proceedings and 
that it presented new arguments and claims of error that were not part of Mexico's Notice of Appeal.  Taking the view that the Appellate Body had the authority to accept the brief, the United States 
argued that it should decline to do so in the circumstan ces of this dispute.  The Division did not find it 
necessary to take the brief into account in resolving the issues raised in the appeal.
17  
  
 US – Softwood Lumber VI (Article 21.5 – Canada)  
 
The United States requested the Appellate Body to  change the date of the oral hearing on the 
ground that "lead counsel for the United States [was] not available on that date, due to a long-
established prior commitment."  The Division referred to Rule 16(2) of the Working Procedures  and 
invited the United States to provide further details in support of its request, in particular, the nature of 
the "exceptional circumstances", as well as the "manif est unfairness" that w ould ensue in the absence 
of a change to the date of the oral hearing.  The United States submitted additional reasons in support 
of its request.  Canada and the third participants were also invited to submit comments on the United 
States' request.  Canada informed the Division that it preferred to have the oral hearing proceed on the 
originally scheduled date, but indicated that a delay of one day could "be accommodated".  No 
comments were received from the third participants.  The Division decided to change the date of the 
oral hearing by one day.18 
 In addition, the European Communities requested the Division to allow the third participants 
additional time to make their presentations at the oral hearing.  The European Communities based  
this request on "the particularly complex context of this dispute and the importance of factual  
issues" and the need for the Eur opean Communities to have time to  reflect on the United States'  
appellee's submission.  The Division invited the European Communities, once it had reviewed the  
United States' appellee's submission, to inform the Division whether the allocated 10 minutes would 
be sufficient or, if not, how much extra time the European Communities was requesting.  China, the 
other third participant, was also asked whether it soug ht additional time to present its oral statement.  
The European Communities requested 15 minutes for its oral presentation.  Canada, the appellee, 
expressed no objection, with the understanding that  any extension of time would not prejudice 
Canada's rights, including the time to make its or al presentation.  The United States objected to the 
                                                     
 
16Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks , para. 7. 
17Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks , para. 8 and footnote 21 thereto. 
18Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber VI (Article 21.5 – Canada) , para. 13. WT/AB/7 
Page 15 
 
 
request, arguing that, under the timetable for app eals, third participants, as a rule, file their 
submissions on the same day as the appellee(s), and t hus do not have time to reflect on the appellee's 
submission before filing their submissions.  The Division decided not to change the originally 
allocated 10 minutes to the third participan ts to deliver their oral presentations.19 
 
Further, the Appellate Body received a request fro m Canada to correct clerical errors in its 
appellant's submission.  The request was received after the deadline provided in Rule 18(5) of the 
Working Procedures .  In response, the United States indicated that, although it would ordinarily have 
concerns about a participant's untimely request to mo dify its submission, in this case it did not object 
to Canada's request given that the errors at issu e were discussed at the oral hearing.  No other 
comments were received.  The Division granted Cana da's request because:  the correct information 
was, in any event, set forth in one of the exhib its submitted by Canada to the Panel;  the matter had 
been discussed at the oral hearing;  and the Un ited States did not object to Canada's request.20 
  
 US – Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 – Canada)  
 
The oral hearing in this appeal had to be  rescheduled owing to logistical difficulties 
associated with ministerial meetings held at the WTO building in connection with Doha Development 
Agenda negotiations.  Neither the pa rticipants nor the third participants objected to the change of 
date.21 
  
 EC – Customs Matters  
 
Japan requested authorization from the Division to correct certain clerical errors in its third 
participant's submission one day after the deadline provided in Rule 18(5) of the Working Procedures .  
No objections were received and Japan's request was authorized by the Division.22 
 
  
VI. Arbitrations under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU 
 Individual Appellate Body Members have, from ti me to time, been asked to act as arbitrators 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU to determine the "reasonable period of time" for the implementation 
by a WTO Member of the recommendations and ru lings adopted by the DSB.  The DSU does not 
specify who shall serve as arbitrator;  the parties to  the arbitration select the arbitrator by consensus 
or, if they cannot agree on an arbitrator, the Direct or-General of the WTO appoints the arbitrator.  To 
date, all those who have served as arbitrators pursuan t to Article 21.3(c) have been current or former 
Appellate Body Members.  In carrying out arb itrations under Article 21. 3(c), Appellate Body 
Members act in an individual capacity. 
 
                                                      
19Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber VI (Article 21.5 – Canada) , para. 14 and footnote 27 
thereto. 
20Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber VI (Article 21.5 – Canada) , para. 15 and footnote 28 
thereto. 
21Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 – Canada) , para. 9 and footnote 29 
thereto. 
22Appellate Body Report, EC – Customs Matters , para. 13. WT/AB/7 
Page 16  
 
 One Article 21.3(c) arbitration proceeding was carried out in 2006.  At the request of the 
parties, James Bacchus, a former Appellate Body Member, served as the Arbitrator in  EC – Chicken 
Cuts.
23  He circulated his Award on 20 February 2006.24  A summary of the Award is provided below. 
  
 Award of the Arbitrator, EC – Chicken Cuts , WT/DS269/13,  WT/DS286/15  
 
As the implementing Member, the European  Communities proposed that the reasonable 
period of time for implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute be 
26 months from the date of adoption of the Pa nel and Appellate Body Reports.  The European 
Communities claimed that this time period was re asonable because a classification decision from the 
World Customs Organization was required under Eu ropean Communities law before the European 
Commission could begin the process for adopti ng the Regulation required to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  The comp laining parties contested the need for a decision 
from the WCO, arguing that implementation could be achieved also by adoption of a Commission Regulation in accordance with the Europ ean Communities' internal procedures. 
 The Arbitrator highlighted two particular aspects of this case that counselled against 
accepting the European Communities' assertion that it was first required to obtain a decision from the 
WCO:  (i) unlike previous methods of implementa tion proposed in arbitrations under Article 21.3(c) 
of the DSU, the method suggested here—namely,  the decision from the WCO—involved recourse to 
processes  outside  the domestic law-making system of the implementing Member;  and (ii) a decision 
from the WCO in this case had the potential to create a perceived obstacle  to the necessary 
implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  In the light of these considerations, 
the Arbitrator determined that the European Co mmunities bore the burden of establishing that a WCO 
classification decision was necessary  under European Communities law as a prerequisite to adoption 
of a Commission Regulation implementing the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  The Arbitrator 
concluded that the European Communities had not succeeded in discharging this burden.  
Accordingly, the Arbitrator determined that th e time needed for obtaining a WCO decision should not 
be considered part of the reasonable period of  time needed for implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. 
 The Arbitrator therefore turned to an examin ation of the time needed  to pass the necessary 
Commission Regulation within the European Communiti es' domestic law-making system in this case.  
In so doing, the Arbitrator considered each of the steps under European Co mmunities law for passage 
of such a Regulation, and the time the European Communities and the Complaining Parties suggested 
was required for each of those steps.  On the basis of  this examination, the Arbitrator concluded that 
the reasonable period of time for the European Communities to implement the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB was nine months, expiring on 27 June 2006.  
 
                                                     
 
23WR/DS269/12, WT/DS286/14. 
 24WT/DS269/13, WT/DS286/15. WT/AB/7 
Page 17 
 
 
VII. Technical Assistance 
The Appellate Body Secretariat participated in the implementation of the WTO Technical 
Assistance and Training Plan 200625, particularly in activities relating to training in dispute settlement 
procedures.  Appellate Body S ecretariat staff conducted the dis pute settlement modules for the 
Regional Trade Policy Courses held in Santiago, Chile (Spanish); Rabat, Morocco (French); 
Windhoek, Namibia; and Hong Kong, China;  the basic principles module for the Regional Trade 
Policy Course held in Rabat, Morocco (French);  and the dispute settlement modules for four  
Trade Policy Courses held in Geneva, Switzerland (one  in Spanish).  In addition, Appellate Body 
Secretariat staff participated in three Specialized  Dispute Settlement Courses also held in Geneva, 
Switzerland (one in French);  delivered five Regiona l Dispute Settlement Semi nars in Buenos Aires, 
Argentina (Spanish);  Manama, Bahrain;  Nouakc hott, Mauritania (French);  Windhoek, Namibia;  
and Bangkok, Thailand;  and presented three Nati onal Dispute Settlement Seminars in Amman, 
Jordan;  Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia;  and Bangkok, Tha iland.  Appellate Body Secretariat staff also 
participated as tutors in the e-training courses on "Introduction to the WTO and Basic Principles" 
offered by the WTO in Spanish.  Lastly, the Appe llate Body Secretariat provided resource persons for 
three other activities falling under the Technical Assistance and Training Plan that took place in New 
Delhi, India;  Manila, Philippines;  and Hong Kong,  China.  Overall, the Appellate Body Secretariat 
participated in 24 technical assistance activities during the course of 2006, in the three official 
languages of the WTO.    Annex 6 provides a summary of the activities carri ed out by Appellate Body Secretariat staff 
falling under the Technical Assistance and Training Plan during the course of 2006. 
 
  
VIII.  Other Developments 
A. WTO Appellate Body Repertory of Reports and Awards 1995–2005 
The second edition of the WTO Appellate Body Repert ory of Reports and Awards was 
published in 2006.  The Repertory compiles excerpts from Appellate Body Repor ts and is organized 
according to the provision of the WTO covered agre ement examined, and by subject-matter.  The 
Repertory also includes excerpts fro m Awards issued in arbitrations under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU 
relating to the period of time granted to WTO Memb ers to implement recommendations and rulings of 
the DSB.  Several tables and charts compiling facts and statistics on WTO dispute settlement are 
annexed to the Repertory.  The second edition cont ains excerpts from Appellate Body Reports and 
Article 21.3(c) Arbitration Awards circ ulated from 1996 through 7 June 2005.26 
 Preparation of the third edition of the Repertory (1995–2006) is currently underway.  It is 
scheduled to be published in 2007 and will contain excerpts fro m Appellate Body Reports and 
Article 21.3(c) Arbitration Awards circul ated from 1996 through 11 December 2006. 
 
The Repertory can be ordered online at <http ://onlinebookshop.wto.org>.  The Repertory may 
also be consulted online at  <www.wto.org/appellatebody>. 
 
                                                     
 
25WT/COMTD/W/142.  
26There were no Appellate Body Reports or Article 21.3(c) Arbitration Awards circulated in 1995. WT/AB/7 
Page 18  
 
B. Tenth Anniversary Conferences 
 In 2005, the Appellate Body launched a series of conferences to celebrate the Tenth 
Anniversary of the WTO Dispute Settlement System  and the Appellate Body.  The conferences were 
hosted by academic institutions with which some Me mbers of the Appellate Body are affiliated, and 
focused on current dispute settlement issues and the A ppellate Body's contribution to the settlement of 
disputes.  Participants included current and fo rmer Appellate Body Members, academics, high-
ranking government representatives, WTO officials,  journalists, students, and civil society 
representatives.  The first three conferences were held in 2005 in Stresa, Italy;  São Paulo, Brazil;  and Tokyo, Japan.  Information on the firs t three conferences was set out in the Appellate Body Annual 
Report for 2005 .  
 
 The last two conferences of the series were he ld on 11-13 February 2006 in Cairo, Egypt, and 
on 5-7 April 2006 in New York, United States.  The Cairo conference was organized by the Cairo 
Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbi tration.  Professor Georges Abi-Saab, Appellate 
Body Member, was a member of the steering co mmittee for this conference.  The New York 
conference was organized and hosted by Columbia University.  Merit E. Janow, Appellate Body 
Member and Professor at Columbia University, w as a member of the steering committee for this 
conference.   Publications compiling the papers presented at four of the five conferences are either published or forthcoming.  The book compiling the pa pers presented at the Stresa conference is co-
published by the WTO and Cambridge University Press and is entitled The WTO at Ten: The 
Contribution of the Dispute Settlement System .  An official book launch was held at the WTO on 
13 July 2006, hosted jointly by th e WTO, Cambridge University Press, and the Permanent Mission of 
Italy to the WTO.  The book was presented by Rona ld Saborío, Ambassador of Costa Rica to the 
WTO and Chair of the DSB Special Session;  Aleja ndro Jara, Deputy- Director-General of the WTO;  
and Georges Abi-Saab, Appellate Body Member.  A reception followed the presentation.  The book is 
available for purchase online at <h ttp://onlinebooksh op.wto.org>.   
 The book compiling the papers presented at the São Paulo conference is published by 
Aduaneiras Press in December 2006.  The book is entitled Dez Anos de OMC – Uma análise do 
Sistema de Solução de Controvérsias e Perspectivas  and is available for purchase online at 
<www.aduaneiras.com.br>.   
 
A publication of the papers presented at the Toky o conference was released in January  2007.  
The publication is entitled The WTO in the Twenty-first Centu ry: Dispute Settlement, Negotiations, 
and Regionalism in Asia  and is co-published by the WTO and Cambridge University Press.  It is 
available for purchase online at <h ttp://onlinebooksh op.wto.org>.   
 
Finally, a publication comprising the papers presented at the New York conference is 
currently in the editing stage and release of the book is scheduled for mid-2007.     General information on the Tenth Anniver sary conferences may be obtained online at 
<www.wto.org/appellatebody>.   
 
The final programmes for the Cairo and New York conferences are included in Annex 7. 
 WT/AB/7 
Page 19 
 
 
C. WTO Internship Programme 
 The Appellate Body Secretariat participates in  the WTO internship programme, which allows 
post-graduate university students to gain prac tical experience and a deeper knowledge of the 
multilateral trading system.  Interns in the Appellate  Body Secretariat obtain first-hand experience of 
the substantive and procedural aspects of WTO di spute settlement and, in particular, appellate 
proceedings.  The internship programme is open to  nationals of WTO Members and to nationals of 
countries and customs territories engaged in accession negotiations. 
  The Appellate Body Secretariat generally hosts two interns concurrently;  each internship is 
for a three-month period.  During 2006, the Ap pellate Body Secretariat welcomed interns from 
Bulgaria, Germany, India (2), Ireland, Kazakhstan,  and Chinese Taipei.  A total of 57 students, of 
35 nationalities, have completed internships w ith the Appellate Body Secretariat since 2001.
27 
  Further information about the WTO internship programme, including eligibility requirements and application instructions, may be obtained online at  
<www.wto.org/english/thewt o_e/vacan_e /intern_e.htm>. 
 
D. Other Activities 
In 2006, the Appellate Body Secretariat continued its Speakers' Series , in which it regularly 
invites scholars and practitioners with expertise in  law, economics, and trade policy to speak on 
topical issues relating to international trade, publ ic international law, and international dispute 
settlement.  The list of speakers in 2006 included Cris tian Espinosa, Steven Fabry, Gary Horlick, Atul 
Kaushik, Gabrielle Marceau, M itsuo Matsushita, Donald McRae, Hunter Nottage, Joost Pauwelyn, 
Fernando Pierola, Thomas Sebastian, Helge Sela nd, Isabelle Van Damme, and Rufus Yerxa.  
 
 Building on the success of the Speakers' Series , the Appellate Body Secretariat launched in 
September 2006 a new Research Series , aimed at doctoral students and young academics.  The 
objective of the programme is to provide an opport unity for doctoral students working on their theses, 
and young academics working on research papers, to present and discuss their research in an informal 
setting with the Geneva-based trade community.     Appellate Body Secretariat staff also participat e in briefings organized for groups visiting the 
WTO, including students.  In these briefings, Appell ate Body Secretariat staff speak to visitors about 
the WTO dispute settlement system in general, and appellate proceedings in particular.  During 2006, 
Appellate Body Secretariat staff gave briefings to  13 groups of students, one group of government 
officials from Thailand, and one group of lawyers from Korea.  Appellate Body Secretariat staff also participated as judges in the moot court compet ition organized by the European Law Students' 
Association.  In addition, Appellate Body Member s and Secretariat staff occasionally give lectures 
and participate in conferences and seminars  dealing with international trade issues.
 
 
 
                                                      
27Data on internships for pre-2001 are not available.   WT/AB/7 
Page 20  
 
ANNEX 1 
 
 
FORMER APPELLATE BODY MEMBERS 
 
Name Nationality Terms of Office 
Said El-Naggar Egypt 1995–1999 
1999–2000 
Mitsuo Matsushita Japan 1995–1999 
1999–2000 
Christopher Beeby New Zealand 1995–1999 
1999–2000 
Claus-Dieter Ehlermann Germany 1995–1997 
1997–2001 
Florentino Feliciano Philippines 1995–1997 
1997–2001 
Julio Lacarte-Muró Uruguay 1995–1997 
1997–2001 
James Bacchus United States 1995–1999 
1999–2003 
John Lockhart Australia 2001–2005 
2005–2006 
  
FORMER CHAIRPERSONS OF  THE APPELLATE BODY 
 
Name Nationality Term(s) as chairperson 
Julio Lacarte-Muró Uruguay 7 February 1996 – 
6 February 1997 
7 February 1997 – 
6 February 1998 
Christopher Beeby New Zealand 7 February 1998 – 
6 February 1999 
Said El-Naggar Egypt 7 February 1999 – 
6 February 2000 
Florentino Feliciano Philippines 7 February 2000 – 
6 February 2001 
Claus-Dieter Ehlermann Germany 7 February 2001 – 
10 December 2001 
James Bacchus United States 15 December 2001 – 
14 December 2002 
15 December 2002 – 
10 December 2003 
Georges Abi-Saab Egypt 13 December 2003 – 
12 December  2004 
Yasuhei Taniguchi Japan 17 December 2004 –  
16 December 2005 
A.V. Ganesan India 17 December 2005 –  
16 December 2006 WT/AB/7 
Page 21 
 
 
ANNEX 2 
 
 
APPEALS FILED: 1995–2006 
 
Year Number of Notices of Appeal filed 
1995   0    
1996   4    
1997     6 a 
1998  8    
1999     9 b 
2000   13 c 
2001     9 d 
2002     7 e 
2003     6 f 
2004    5    
2005  10   
2006    5    
Total  82    
 
 
aThis number includes two Notices of App eal that were circulated at the sa me time in related matters, counted 
separately: EC – Hormones (Canada) ; EC – Hormones (US).   A single Appellate Body Repor t was subsequently circulated 
in relation to these appeals. 
bThis number excludes one Notice of A ppeal that was withdrawn by the Unit ed States, which subsequently filed 
another Notice of Appeal in rela tion to the same  Panel Report: US – FSC . 
cThis number includes two Notices of Appeal that were circulated at the same time in related matters, counted 
separately: US – 1916 Act (EC) ; US – 1916 Act (Japan).   A single Appellate Body Report was subsequently circulated in 
relation to these appeals. 
dThis number excludes one Notice of A ppeal that was withdrawn by the Unit ed States, which subsequently filed 
another Notice of Appeal in rela tion to the same  Panel Report: US – Line Pipe . 
eThis number includes one Notice of App eal that was subsequently withdrawn: India – Autos , and excludes one 
Notice of Appeal that was withdrawn by the European Commun ities, which subsequently filed another Notice of Appeal in 
relation to the same Panel Report: EC – Sardines . 
fThis number excludes one Notice of Appeal that was w ithdrawn by the United States, which subsequently filed 
a new Notice of Appeal in relation to the same Panel Report: US – Softwood Lumber IV . 
 
 WT/AB/7 
Page 22  
 
ANNEX 3 
 
 
PERCENTAGE OF PANEL REPORTS APPEALED 
BY YEAR OF ADOPTION:  1995–2006 a 
 
 All Panel Reports Panel Reports other than  
Article 21.5 Reports b Article 21.5 Panel Reports 
Year of 
adoption Panel 
Reports 
adopted c Panel 
Reports 
appealed d Percentage 
appealed ePanel 
Reports 
adopted Panel 
Reports 
appealed Percentage 
appealed Panel 
Reports 
adopted Panel 
Reports 
appealed Percentage 
appealed 
1996 2 2 100% 2 2 100% 0 0 – 
1997 5 5 100% 5 5 100% 0 0 – 
1998 12 9 75% 12 9 75% 0 0 – 
1999 10 7 70% 9 7 78% 1 0 0% 
2000 19 11 58% 15 9 60% 4 2 50% 
2001 17 12 71% 13 9 69% 4 3 75% 
2002 12 6 50% 11 5 45% 1 1 100% 
2003 10 7 70% 8 5 63% 2 2 100% 
2004 8 6 75% 8 6 75% 0 0 – 
2005 20 12 60% 17 11 65% 3 1 33% 
2006 7 6 86% 4 3 75% 3 3 100% 
Total 122 83 68% 104 71 68% 18 12 67% 
 
 
a No Panel Reports were adopted in 1995. 
b Under Article 21.5 of the DSU, a pane l may be established to hear a "disagreement as to the existence or 
consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the re commendations and rulings" of the DSB upon 
the adoption of a previous Panel or Appellate Body Report. 
c The Panel Reports in EC – Bananas III (Ecuador) , EC – Bananas III (Guatemala and Honduras) ,  
EC – Bananas III (Mexico) , and EC – Bananas III (US)  are counted as a single Panel Report.  The Panel Reports in US – 
Steel Safeguards , in EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar , and in EC – Chicken Cuts , are also counted as a single Panel Report in 
each of those disputes.  
d Panel Reports are counted as having been appealed where they are adopted as upheld, modified, or reversed by 
an Appellate Body Report.  The number of  Panel Reports appealed may differ fro m the number of Appellate Body Reports 
because some Appellate Body Reports address more than one Panel Report. 
e Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.  
  
 
ANNEX 4 
 
 
WTO AGREEMENTS ADDRESSED IN APPELLATE BODY REPORT S CIRCULATED THROUGH 2006 a 
 
Year of 
Circulation DSU WTO 
Agmt GATT 
1994 Agriculture SPS ATC TBT TRIMs Anti- 
Dumping Import 
Licensing SCM Safe- 
guards GATS TRIPS 
1996 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
1997 4 1 5 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 
1998 7 1 4 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 
1999 7 1 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 
2000 8 1 7 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 2 1 1 
2001 7 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 4 0 1 2 0 0 
2002 8 2 4 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 1 1 1 
2003 4 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 
2004 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 
2005 9 0 5 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 
2006 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 
Total 61 9 47 11 4 3 2 0 19 2 20 7 4 3 
 
a No appeals were filed in 1995. 
 WT/AB/7
Page 23WT/AB/7 
Page 24  
 
ANNEX 5 
 
 
PARTICIPANTS AND THIRD PARTICIPANTS IN APPEALS: 
1995–2006 
 
 As of the end of 2006, there were 149 WTO Members1, of which 66 (44 per cent) have 
participated in appeals in which Appellate Body  Reports were circulated between 1996 and 2006.2  
 
 The rules pursuant to which Members particip ate in appeals as appellant, other appellant, 
appellee, and third participant are described  in Section IV of this Annual Report.   
 
  I.  STATISTICAL SUMMARY  
 
WTO Member Appellant Other 
Appellant Appellee Third 
Participant Total 
Antigua & Barbuda 1 – 1 – 2 
Argentina 2 1 3 6 12 
Australia 2 1 5 13 21 
Barbados – – – 1 1 
Belize – – – 2 2 
Benin – – – 1 1 
Bolivia – – – 1 1 
Brazil 8 3 10 12 33 
Cameroon – – – 1 1 
Canada 10 6 14 13 43 
Chad – – – 1 1 
Chile 2 – 1 4 7 
China – 1 1 14 16 
Colombia – – – 4 4 
Costa Rica 1 – – 3 4 
Côte d'Ivoire – – – 2 2 
Cuba – – – 3 3 
Dominica – – – 2 2 
Dominican Republic 1 – 1 1 3 
Ecuador – 1 1 5 7 
Egypt – – – 1 1 
El Salvador – – – 2 2 
European Communities 11 13 29 36 89 
Fiji – – – 1 1 
Ghana – – – 1 1 
                                                      
1The Government of the Socia list Republic of Viet Nam submitted, on 12 December 2006, its 
acceptance of the terms and co nditions of membership set out in the Accession Protocol (see WT/L/662).  
Viet Nam became the 150th Member of the WTO on 11 January 2007. 
2No appeals were filed and no Appellate Body Reports were circulated in 1995, the year the Appellate 
Body was established. WT/AB/7 
Page 25 
 
 
WTO Member Appellant Other 
Appellant Appellee Third 
Participant Total 
Grenada – – – 1 1 
Guatemala 1 1 1 3 6 
Guyana – – – 1 1 
Honduras 1 1 2 1 5 
Hong Kong, China – – – 6 6 
India 5 1 5 16 27 
Indonesia – – 1 1 2 
Israel – – – 1 1 
Jamaica – – – 3 3 
Japan 4 4 8 23 39 
Kenya – – – 1 1 
Korea 4 2 5 8 19 
Madagascar – – – 1 1 
Malaysia 1 – 1 – 2 
Mauritius – – – 2 2 
Malawi – – – 1 1 
Mexico 4 1 4 14 23 
New Zealand – 2 5 7 14 
Nicaragua – – – 2 2 
Nigeria – – – 1 1 
Norway – 1 1 7 9 
Pakistan – – 2 2 4 
Panama – – – 1 1 
Paraguay – – – 4 4 
Peru – – 1 1 2 
Philippines 1 – 1 1 3 
Poland – – 1 – 1 
Senegal – – – 1 1 
St Lucia – – – 2 2 
St Kitts & Nevis – – – 1 1 
St Vincent & the 
Grenadines – – – 1 1 
Suriname – – – 1 1 
Swaziland – – – 1 1 
Switzerland – 1 1 – 2 
Chinese Taipei – – – 9 9 
Tanzania – – – 1 1 
Thailand 3 – 4 4 11 
Trinidad &Tobago  – – – 1 1 
Turkey 1 – – 1 2 
United States 25 9 47 23 104 
Venezuela – – 1 6 7 
Total 88 49 157 291 585 WT/AB/7 
Page 26  
 
II.  DETAILS BY YEAR OF CIRCULATION 
 
1996  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third Participant(s) 
US – Gasoline 
WT/DS2/AB/R  United States - - - Brazil 
Venezuela  European 
Communities 
Norway 
Japan – Alcoholic 
Beverages II 
WT/DS8/AB/R 
WT/DS10/AB/R 
WT/DS11/AB/R Japan United States Canada  
European 
Communities 
Japan 
United States - - - 
 
1997  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third Participant(s) 
US – Underwear 
WT/DS24/AB/R Costa Rica - - - United States India 
Brazil –  Desiccated 
Coconut 
WT/DS22/AB/R  Philippines Brazil Brazil 
Philippines European 
Communities 
United States 
US – Wool Shirts and 
Blouses  
WT/DS33/AB/R  India - - - United States - - - 
Canada – Periodicals 
WT/DS31/AB/R  Canada United States Canada  
United States - - - 
EC – Bananas III 
WT/DS27/AB/R  European 
Communities  Ecuador 
Guatemala 
Honduras 
Mexico United States Ecuador 
European 
Communities  
Guatemala Honduras 
Mexico 
United States Belize 
Cameroon 
Colombia 
Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire  Dominica Dominican Republic  
Ghana  
Grenada Jamaica  Japan Nicaragua Saint Lucia 
St Vincent & the 
Grenadines 
Senegal 
Suriname 
Venezuela 
India – Patents (US) WT/DS50/AB/R  India - - - United States European 
Communities WT/AB/7 
Page 27 
 
 
1998  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third Participant(s) 
EC – Hormones 
WT/DS26/AB/R 
WT/DS48/AB/R  European 
Communities  Canada 
United States Canada 
European 
Communities 
United States  Australia 
New Zealand 
Norway 
Argentina – Textiles 
and Apparel  
WT/DS56/AB/R  Argentina - - - United States European 
Communities 
EC – Computer 
Equipment 
WT/DS62/AB/R 
WT/DS67/AB/R 
WT/DS68/AB/R  European 
Communities - - - United States Japan 
EC – Poultry  
WT/DS69/AB/R  Brazil European 
Communities Brazil 
European 
Communities Thailand 
United States 
US – Shrimp  WT/DS58/AB/R  United States - - - India  
Malaysia Pakistan Thailand Australia 
Ecuador  European 
Communities 
Hong Kong, China Mexico Nigeria 
Australia – Salmon WT/DS18/AB/R  Australia Canada Australia 
Canada European 
Communities 
India 
Norway United States 
Guatemala – 
Cement I 
WT/DS60/AB/R  Guatemala - - - Mexico United States 
 WT/AB/7 
Page 28  
 
1999  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third Participant(s) 
Korea – Alcoholic 
Beverages 
WT/DS75/AB/R 
WT/DS84/AB/R  Korea - - - European 
Communities 
United States Mexico 
Japan – Agricultural 
Products II 
WT/DS76/AB/R  Japan  United States Japan 
United States Brazil 
European 
Communities 
Brazil – Aircraft 
WT/DS46/AB/R  Brazil Canada Brazil 
Canada European 
Communities  
United States 
Canada – Aircraft WT/DS70/AB/R  Canada Brazil Brazil 
Canada European 
Communities  
United States 
India – Quantitative 
Restrictions  
WT/DS90/AB/R  India - - - United States - - - 
Canada – Dairy  
WT/DS103/AB/R 
WT/DS113/AB/R  Canada - - - New Zealand 
United States - - - 
Turkey –Textiles 
WT/DS34/AB/R  Turkey - - - India Hong Kong, China 
Japan Philippines 
Chile – Alcoholic 
Beverages 
WT/DS87/AB/R 
WT/DS110/AB/R  Chile - - - European 
Communities Mexico 
United States 
Argentina – Footwear 
(EC) 
WT/DS121/AB/R  Argentina European 
Communities Argentina 
European 
Communities Indonesia 
United States 
Korea – Dairy  
WT/DS98/AB/R  Korea European 
Communities Korea 
European 
Communities United States 
 WT/AB/7 
Page 29 
 
 
2000  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third Participant(s) 
US – FSC  
WT/DS108/AB/R  United States European 
Communities European 
Communities 
United States Canada 
Japan 
US – Lead and 
Bismuth II 
WT/DS138/AB/R  United States - - - European 
Communities Brazil 
Mexico 
Canada –  Autos 
WT/DS139/AB/R  Canada European 
Communities 
Japan Canada 
European 
Communities 
Japan Korea 
United States 
Brazil – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – 
Canada) 
WT/DS46/AB/RW  Brazil - - - Canada European 
Communities 
United States 
Canada – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Brazil) 
WT/DS70/AB/RW  Brazil - - - Canada European 
Communities 
United States 
US – 1916 Act WT/DS136/AB/R 
WT/DS162/AB/R  United States  European 
Communities 
Japan  European 
Communities 
Japan 
United States European 
Communities
 3 
India  
Japan 4 
Mexico 
Canada – Term of 
Patent Protection 
WT/DS170/AB/R  Canada - - - United States - - - 
Korea – Various 
Measures on Beef 
WT/DS161/AB/R 
WT/DS169/AB/R  Korea - - - Australia 
United States Canada 
New Zealand 
US – Certain EC 
Products  
WT/DS165/AB/R European 
Communities United States European 
Communities 
United States Dominica 
Ecuador 
India 
Jamaica Japan St. Lucia 
US – Wheat Gluten WT/DS166/AB/R  United States European 
Communities European 
Communities 
United States Australia 
Canada New Zealand 
 
                                                      
3In complaint brought by Japan. 
4In complaint brought by the European Communities. WT/AB/7 
Page 30  
 
2001  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third Participant(s) 
EC – Bed Linen 
WT/DS141/AB/R  European 
Communities India European 
Communities 
India Egypt 
Japan 
United States 
EC – Asbestos  WT/DS135/AB/R  Canada European 
Communities Canada 
European 
Communities Brazil 
United States  
Thailand – H-Beams 
WT/DS122/AB/R  Thailand - - - Poland European 
Communities 
Japan United States 
US – Lamb  WT/DS177/AB/R 
WT/DS178/AB/R  United States Australia 
New Zealand Australia 
New Zealand United States European 
Communities 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel 
WT/DS184/AB/R  United States  Japan Japan 
United States Brazil 
Canada Chile 
European 
Communities 
Korea 
US – Cotton Yarn WT/DS192/AB/R  United States - - - Pakistan European 
Communities 
India 
US – Shrimp  
(Article 21.5 – 
Malaysia) 
WT/DS58/AB/RW  Malaysia - - - United States Australia 
European 
Communities 
Hong Kong, China 
India 
Japan Mexico Thailand 
Mexico – Corn Syrup 
(Article 21.5 – US) 
WT/DS132/AB/RW  Mexico - - - United States European 
Communities 
Canada – Dairy  
(Article 21.5 – New 
Zealand and US) 
WT/DS103/AB/RW 
WT/DS113/AB/RW  Canada - - - New Zealand 
United States European 
Communities 
 WT/AB/7 
Page 31 
 
 
2002  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third Participant(s) 
US – Section 211 
Appropriations Act  
WT/DS176/AB/R  European 
Communities United States European 
Communities 
United States - - - 
US – FSC  
(Article 21.5 – EC) 
WT/DS108/AB/RW  United States European 
Communities European 
Communities 
United States Australia 
Canada India Japan 
US – Line Pipe WT/DS202/AB/R  United States  Korea Korea  
United States Australia 
Canada 
European 
Communities 
Japan Mexico 
India – Autos  5 
WT/DS146/AB/R 
WT/DS175/AB/R India - - - European 
Communities 
United States Korea 
Chile – Price Band 
System  
WT/DS207/AB/R  Chile - - - Argentina Australia 
Brazil Colombia Ecuador 
European 
Communities 
Paraguay United States  
Venezuela 
EC – Sardines  WT/DS231/AB/R  European 
Communities - - - Peru Canada 
Chile 
Ecuador United States  Venezuela 
US – Carbon Steel WT/DS213/AB/R  United States European 
Communities European 
Communities  
United States Japan 
Norway 
US – Countervailing 
Measures on Certain  
EC Products 
WT/DS212/AB/R  United States - - - European 
Communities Brazil 
India Mexico 
Canada – Dairy  
(Article 21.5 – New 
Zealand and US II) 
WT/DS103/AB/RW2 
WT/DS113/AB/RW2  Canada - - - New Zealand 
United States Argentina 
Australia European 
Communities  
 
                                                      
5India withdrew its appeal the day before th e oral hearing was scheduled to proceed. WT/AB/7 
Page 32  
 
2003  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third Participant(s) 
US – Offset Act  
(Byrd Amendment ) 
WT/DS217/AB/R  
WT/DS234/AB/R United States - - - Australia 
Brazil 
Canada 
Chile European 
Communities 
India Indonesia Japan Korea Mexico 
Thailand Argentina 
Costa Rica 
Hong Kong, China 
Israel Norway 
EC – Bed Linen  
(Article 21.5 – India ) 
WT/DS141/AB/RW India - - - European 
Communities Japan 
Korea 
United States 
EC – Tube or Pipe 
Fittings 
WT/DS219/AB/R Brazil - - - European 
Communities Chile 
Japan Mexico United States 
US – Steel Safeguards WT/DS248/AB/R 
WT/DS249/AB/R  
WT/DS251/AB/R  
WT/DS252/AB/R  
WT/DS253/AB/R  
WT/DS254/AB/R  
WT/DS258/AB/R  
WT/DS259/AB/R  United States Brazil 
China European 
Communities 
Japan Korea New Zealand 
Norway 
Switzerland Brazil 
China European 
Communities 
Japan Korea New Zealand 
Norway 
Switzerland United States Canada 
Cuba Mexico 
Chinese Taipei 
Thailand Turkey  Venezuela 
Japan – Apples WT/DS245/AB/R Japan United States Japan 
United States Australia 
Brazil European 
Communities 
New Zealand  Chinese Taipei  
US – Corrosion-
Resistant Steel Sunset 
Review 
WT/DS244/AB/R Japan - - - United States Brazil 
Chile European 
Communities 
India Korea Norway 
 WT/AB/7 
Page 33 
 
 
2004  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third Participant(s) 
US – Softwood 
Lumber IV 
WT/DS257/AB/R  United States Canada Canada 
United States European 
Communities 
India  Japan  
EC – Tariff 
Preferences 
WT/DS246/AB/R  European 
Communities - - - India Bolivia 
Brazil Colombia 
Costa Rica 
Cuba  Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras 
Mauritius 
Nicaragua Pakistan Panama Paraguay 
Peru  
United States Venezuela 
US – Softwood 
Lumber V 
WT/DS264/AB/R  United States Canada Canada 
United States European 
Communities 
India  
Japan 
Canada – Wheat 
Exports and Grain Imports 
WT/DS276/AB/R  United States Canada Canada 
United States Australia 
China 
European 
Communities 
Mexico  
Chinese Taipei  
US – Oil Country 
Tubular Goods Sunset 
Reviews 
WT/DS268/AB/R  United States Argentina Argentina 
United States European 
Communities 
Japan Korea 
Mexico  
Chinese Taipei  
 WT/AB/7 
Page 34  
 
2005  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third Participant(s) 
US – Upland Cotton 
WT/DS267/AB/R  United States Brazil Brazil 
United States Argentina 
Australia 
Benin 
Canada Chad China European 
Communities 
India New Zealand Pakistan 
Paraguay 
Chinese Taipei  Venezuela 
US – Gambling WT/DS285/AB/R  United States Antigua & Barbuda Antigua & Barbuda 
United States Canada 
European 
Communities 
Japan Mexico  Chinese Taipei  
EC – Export Subsidies 
on Sugar 
WT/DS265/AB/R 
WT/DS266/AB/R 
WT/DS283/AB/R  European 
Communities Australia 
Brazil Thailand Australia 
Brazil European 
Communities 
Thailand  Barbados 
Belize Canada China 
Colombia 
Côte d'Ivoire Cuba Fiji Guyana 
India 
Jamaica Kenya Madagascar Malawi Mauritius 
New Zealand 
Paraguay  St. Kitts & Nevis Swaziland Tanzania 
Trinidad & Tobago 
United States WT/AB/7 
Page 35 
 
 
2005  (cont'd) 
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third Participant(s) 
Dominican Republic – 
Import and Sale of 
Cigarettes 
WT/DS302/AB/R  Dominican Republic Honduras Dominican Republic 
Honduras China 
El Salvador European 
Communities 
Guatemala United States 
US – Countervailing 
Duty Investigation on 
DRAMS 
WT/DS296/AB/R  United States Korea Korea 
United States China 
European 
Communities 
Japan  Chinese Taipei  
EC – Chicken Cuts WT/DS269/AB/R 
WT/DS286/AB/R  European 
Communities Brazil 
Thailand Brazil 
European 
Communities 
Thailand China 
United States 
Mexico – Anti-
Dumping Measures 
on Rice 
WT/DS295/AB/R  Mexico - - - United States China 
European 
Communities 
US – Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Oil 
Country Tubular 
Goods 
WT/DS282/AB/R  Mexico United States Mexico 
United States Argentina 
Canada China European 
Communities 
Japan  Chinese Taipei  
US – Softwood 
Lumber IV  
(Article 21.5 – 
Canada) 
WT/DS257/AB/RW  United States Canada Canada 
United States China 
European 
Communities 
 WT/AB/7 
Page 36  
 
2006  
 
Case Appellant Other Appellant(s) Appellee(s) Third Participant(s) 
US – FSC  
(Article 21.5 – EC II) 
WT/DS108/AB/RW2 United States European 
Communities European 
Communities 
United States Australia 
Brazil 
China 
Mexico ‒ Taxes on 
Soft Drinks 
WT/DS308/AB/R Mexico - - - United States Canada 
China 
European 
Communities 
Guatemala 
Japan 
US – Softwood  
Lumber VI  
(Article 21.5 – 
Canada) 
WT/DS277/AB/RW Canada - - - United States China  
European 
Communities 
US – Zeroing (EC) 
WT/DS294/AB/R European 
Communities United States United States 
European 
Communities Argentina 
Brazil 
China 
Hong Kong, China India  Japan Korea Mexico 
Norway 
Chinese Taipei 
US – Softwood  
Lumber V  
(Article 21.5 – 
Canada) 
WT/DS264/AB/RW Canada - - - United States China 
European 
Communities 
India  
Japan New Zealand Thailand 
EC – Selected 
Customs Matters 
WT/DS315/AB/R United States European 
Communities European 
Communities 
United States Argentina 
Australia Brazil China 
Hong Kong, China 
India Japan Korea  Chinese Taipei 
 
 WT/AB/7 
Page 37 
 
 
 ANNEX 6 
 
 
APPELLATE BODY SECRETARI AT PARTICIPATION IN  
THE WTO TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING PLAN 2006 
 
 
Course / Seminar Location Dates 
35th Trade Policy Course – Appellate Body 
presentation  Geneva, Switzerland 20–24 March 2006 
36th Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement 
presentations and simulations Geneva, Switzerland 27–31 March 2006 
14th Specialized Dispute Settlement Course  Geneva, Switzerland 24–28 April 2006 
Seminar on WTO-related Issues for Government 
officials in the SAARC Region New Delhi, India 2–3 May 2006 
Regional Trade Policy Course (Bas ic Principles) Rabat, Morocco  
(French) 15–17 May 2006 
Regional Trade Policy Course (Agriculture) Hong Kong, China 22–23 May 2006 
E-Training Course – Introduction to the WTO and 
Basic Principles Geneva, Switzerland 
(Spanish) 15 May– 
23 June 2006 
Intensive Course on WTO Dispute Settlement 
Mechanisms Bangkok, Thailand 20–21 June 2006 
15th Specialized Dispute Settlement Course Geneva, Switzerland 3–7 July 2006 
Regional Trade Policy Course (Dispute Settlement) Hong Kong, China 3–7 July 2006 
37th Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement 
presentations and simulations Geneva, Switzerland 
(Spanish) 10–14 July 2006 
Regional Seminar on Dispute Settlement Nouakchott, Mauritania 
(French) 10–14 July 2006 
Regional Trade Policy Course (Dispute Settlement) Rabat, Morocco  
(French) 24–28 July 2006 
Regional Trade Policy Course (Dispute Settlement) Windhoek, Namibia 14–18 August 2006 
National Seminar on Dispute Settlement Bangkok, Thailand 11–15 September 2006 
National Seminar on Dispute Settlement Amman, Jordan 18–22 September 2006 
16th Specialized Dispute Settlement Course Geneva, Switzerland 
(French) 25–29 September 2006 
National Seminar on Dispute Settlement  Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 13–15 November 2006 
National Workshop on Agriculture, SPS, and Fisheries 
Subsidies Manila, Philippines 21–23 November 2006 WT/AB/7 
Page 38  
 
 Course / Seminar Location Dates 
38th Trade Policy Course – Dispute Settlement 
presentations and simulations Geneva, Switzerland 27 November – 
1 December 2006 
Regional Seminar on Dispute Settlement  Buenos Aires, Argentina 
(Spanish) 27 November –
1 December 2006 
Regional Seminar on Dispute Settlement  Manama, Bahrain 3–6 December 2006 
Regional Trade Policy Course (Dispute Settlement) Santiago, Chile  
(Spanish) 4–7 December 2006 
Regional Seminar on Dispute Settlement  Windhoek, Namibia 1 1–16 December  2006 
 
 WT/AB/7 
Page 39 
 
 
 ANNEX 7 
 
 
PROGRAMMES OF TENTH ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCES 
HELD IN 2006 
 
 
The WTO at Ten:  The Role of Developing Countries  
in Negotiations and Dispute Settlement 
 
11–13 February 2006 
Cairo, Egypt 
 
PROGRAMME 
 
Saturday, 11 February 2006  
Opening  
Session:   "Introduction and tribute to Said El -Naggar, Former Appe llate Body Member" 
Mohamed Aboul-Enein , Director, Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial 
Arbitration 
Georges Abi-Saab , Appellate Body Member, WTO; Ho norary Professor at the Graduate 
Institute of International Studies, Geneva , and at Cairo University Faculty of Law 
Ahmed Fathy Sorour , Speakers of the People's Assembly  
Wafik Z. Kamil , Secretary-General of the Asian A frican Legal Consultative Organization 
(AALCO)  
 
Session I:   "The WTO at 10:  From Marrakesh to Hong Kong and Beyond"  
  Objective : Stock-taking after the Hong  Kong Ministerial held in December, providing, at the 
same time, an introduction to the main areas covered by the ongoing Doha Development 
Agenda negotiations.  The initial speaker woul d trace the history of the GATT/WTO, looking 
at how negotiations initially focused on tariffs, followed by rules relating to trade in goods and 
then expanding into new sectors, such as services, and intellectual property.  The other 
speakers would focus on particular sectors, na mely, non-agricultural goods, including textiles 
(referred to as "NAMA"); agriculture; services; and, intellectual property, including access to 
medicines. 
 Chair:   Yasuhei Taniguchi
, Appellate Body Member, WTO; Professor of Law, Senshu University 
Law School; Attorney at Law, Matsuo & Kosugi, Tokyo 
Speakers:  Alejandro Jara , Deputy Director-General, WTO 
Magda Shahin , Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs 
Hamid Mamdouh , Director, Trade in Services Division, WTO 
Hossam Lotfy , Head of the Civil Law Department an d Professor, Bani Sweif University 
John Finn , Counsellor, Agriculture and Commodities Division, WTO 
Adel Khalil , Former First Under-Secretary of the Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Trade and 
Head of the Trade Representation Department 
 
Session II:  "How Can Developing Countries Participate More Effectively in Trade Negotiations?" 
  Objective : Discuss developing country participation in GATT/WTO negotiations.  The 
discussion could include a comparison of the experiences of different developing countries 
(such as Egypt, Brazil, and India) in the negotia tions.  Capacity-building efforts in the area of 
trade negotiations could also be assessed.  Linkages between negotiations and dispute 
settlement could also be explored. 
 Chair:   Alejandro Jara
, Deputy Director-General, WTO 
Rapporteur:  Abdulqawi Yusuf , Director, Office of International St andards and Legal Affairs, UNESCO 
Panelists:  Hamid Mamdouh , Director, Trade in Services Division, WTO  
  Doaa Abdel-Motaal , Counsellor, Office of the Director-General, WTO  
  A m r  R a m a d a n , Director, International Economic Relations Affairs, Egyptian Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs 
 WT/AB/7 
Page 40  
 
 Session III:  "Special and Differential Treatment in the WTO Agreements and its Relationship to the 
Basic Principles Underlying th e Multilateral Trading System" 
  Objective : Present a survey of the provisions in the covered agreements relating to special and 
differential treatment ("S&D") for developing a nd least-developed countries and of how these 
provisions have been applied in practice.  Examine the relationship between the S&D provisions and the basic principles underlying the multilateral trading system, such as national 
treatment and most-favoured nation treatment.  Assess the effectiveness of current S&D 
provisions and discuss S&D proposals made in the context of the Doha Development Agenda. 
 
Chair:   Walid El Nozahy
, Director of the WTO Central Department, Egyptian Ministry of Foreign 
Trade and Industry  
Rapporteur:  Thomas Cottier , Managing Director, World Trade Institute 
Panelists:  Hannes Schloemann , Director, World Trade Institute Advisors Ltd 
  Mohsen Helal , Regional Advisor on WTO Issues, UN Economic and Social Commission for 
Western Asia 
  Mohamed Dwidar , Former Head of Economics Departme nt, University of Alexandria Law 
School  
 
Sunday, 12 February 2006  
 
Session IV:  "Developing Country Participation in Di spute Settlement Proceedings:  Who, What, 
Why and How?"  
  Objective : Provide an overview of WTO dispute settlement procedures.  Assess the 
participation of developing countries in WTO dispute settlement.  The discussion could 
include looking at the experience that particular developing countries have had as participants in the system.  It could also examine proposals for building cap acity in the area of dispute 
settlement. 
 
Chair:  Mohamed Aboul-Enein
 
Rapporteur:  Greg Shaffer , Professor, University of Wisconsin Law School   
Panelists:  Hamdy Abdel Azeem , Professor of Economics, Sedat Academy for Management Sciences   
  N i c o l a s  L o c k h a r t , Counsel, Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood, Geneva 
  Jan Bohanes , Legal Officer, Appellate Body Secretariat, WTO  
 
Session V:  "The Rules of the Game:  Can the DSU Be Cl arified and Improved to Assist Developing 
Countries?" 
  Objective : Review the state-of-play of the DSU review negotiations, focusing on the 
participation of developing countries in the negotiations and on the proposals relating to 
developing country participation in dispute settlement.  
  
Chair:  Alejandro Jara  
Rapporteur:  Valerie Hughes , Partner, Gowling Lafleur Henderson,  Ottawa; Former Director, Appellate 
Body Secretariat, WTO 
Panelists:  Lothar Ehring , Trade Directorate, EC Commission  
  Naglaa Nassar , Legal Advisor to the Egyptian Mini ster of International Cooperation 
  Niall Meagher , Senior Counsel, Advisory Centre on WTO Law, Geneva 
 
Session VI:  "Dispute Settlement in Practice – Mult ilateral Rules on Trade Remedies:   
Case Study 1 – The US – Steel Safeguards  dispute" 
  Objective : The case study will be conducted as a workshop.  The dispute will be used to 
review the procedural stages th at are followed in a WTO dispute.   Relevant substantive issues 
relating to the Agreement on Safeguards  and trade in industrial goods will also be discussed .  
The participation of developing countries in this dispute will also be examined. 
Panelists:   Nicolas Lockhart  
Gabrielle Marceau , Counsellor, Office of th e Director-General, WTO 
Alan Yanovich , Counsellor, Appellate Body Secretariat, WTO 
 WT/AB/7 
Page 41 
 
 
 Session VII:  "Dispute Settlement in Practice – Multilateral Rules on Trade Remedies: 
  Case study 2 – The EC – Bed Linen  dispute" 
  Objective : This case study also will be conducted as a workshop.  The review of WTO dispute 
settlement procedures will include proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU.  Relevant 
substantive issues relating to the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and trade in textiles will also be 
discussed.  The participation of developing co untries in this dispute will also be examined. 
Panelists:   Abdel-Rahman Fawsi , Head of Commercial Agreement S ector, Egyptian Ministry of Foreign 
Trade and Industry 
  Niall Meagher  
  Jan Bohanes  
 
Monday, 13 February 2006  
 
Session VIII:  "The Role of the Appellate Body and its Co ntribution to the Development of the Law" 
Objective : Examine the role of the Appellate Body in the WTO dispute settlement system  
and asses its jurisprudence.  Also, examine the Appellate Body's broader contribution to 
international dispute settlement, including a comparison with other international dispute 
settlement institutions. 
 
Chair:    Georges Abi-Saab  
Panelists:  Mohamed Aboul-Enein  
  J o o s t  P a u w e l y n , Professor, Duke University Law School 
  Gabrielle Marceau  
 Session IX:
  "The Arab Countries and the Multilateral Trading System " 
 
Panelists:  Gamal Bayoumy , President, Egyptian Federation of Arab Investors  
  Hisham Youssef , Head of the Office of the  Secret ary General of Arab League, Cairo 
 Closing Remarks:
     Georges Abi-Saab , Mohamed Aboul-Enein  
 
_______________ WT/AB/7 
Page 42  
 
 The WTO at Ten: 
Governance, Dispute Settlement, and Developing Countries 
 
New York, United States 
5–7 April 2006 
 
PROGRAMME 
 
Wednesday, 5 April 2006  
 
Opening Dinner: A Worl d Leaders Forum Event 
 
Dinner and Discussion: 
The Uruguay Round and the WTO: What Have We Achieved? 
 
Welcome:  Lee C. Bollinger , President, Columbia University  
Chair:  Merit E. Janow , Appellate Body Member, WTO; Professor, International Economic Law & International 
Affairs, Columbia University 
Keynote Speakers:  Jagdish Bhagwati , Professor of Economics, Columbia University  
Carla A. Hills , Chairman & CEO, Hills & Co. Int'l Consultants; Former US Trade Representative  
Peter D. Sutherland KCMG , Chairman, Goldman Sachs International; Chairman, BP plc; Former Director-
General GATT/WTO Clayton Yeutter
, Of Counsel, Hogan & Hartson LLP; Former US  Secretary of Agriculture; Former US Trade 
Representative 
 
Thursday, 6 April 2006  
 
Welcome: Lisa Anderson , Dean and James T. Shotwell Professor of International Affairs, School of 
International and Public Affairs, Columbia University  
 
Session 1:  "Decision Making at the WTO: An Analysis of a Member-Driven Organization"   
 
Chair:  Professor Merit E. Janow  
Discussion:  Hyun-Chong Kim , Minister for Trade, Republic of Korea  
Amina Mohamed , Chair, WTO General Council; Ambassador of  the Republic of Kenya to the WTO  
Stuart Harbinson , Special Adviser, Office of  the WTO Director-General 
Mary Robinson , Professor, Public Affairs, Columbia Univer sity; Executive Director, Realizing Rights: The 
Ethical Globalization Initiative; Former President, Ireland  
Sun Zhenyu , Ambassador of the People's Republic of China to the WTO  
 
Session 2:  "Examining the Dispute Settlemen t System: How Has It Performed?"  
 
Chair: Yasuhei Taniguchi , Appellate Body Member, WTO; Professor of Law, Senshu University Law School; 
Attorney at Law, Matsuo & Kosugi, Tokyo 
Discussion: John H. Jackson , Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center  
Julio A. Lacarte , Former Member and Chairman of the Appellate Body, WTO 
George A. Bermann , Jean Monnet Professor of EU Law and Walter Gellhorn Professor of Law, Columbia Law 
School (presenting paper by Petros C. Mavroidis , Edwin B. Parker Professor of  Foreign & Comparative Law, 
Columbia Law School)  
Frieder Roessler , Executive Director, Advisory Centre on WTO Law  
Werner Zdouc , Director, Appellate Body Secretariat, WTO  
 WT/AB/7 
Page 43 
 
 
 Luncheon and Discussion: 
The WTO and Developing Countries  
 
Welcome:  Jeffrey D. Sachs,  Director, Earth Institute at Columbia Univ ersity; Quetelet Professor of Sustainable 
Development; Professor of Health Policy and Manage ment, Columbia University; Special Advisor to 
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan 
Keynote Speakers:  Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala , Minister of Finance, Federal Republic of Nigeria  
Mari Elka Pangestu , Minister of Trade, Republic of Indonesia  
 
Session 3:  "Lessons from Experience: Operation of  the Panel Process and Appellate Review" 
 
Chair:  Luiz Olavo Baptista , Appellate Body Member, WTO; Professor of International Trade Law, University 
of São Paulo Law School; Senior Partner, L.O. Baptista Law Firm, São Paulo Discussion: William J. Davey
, Professor of Law, University  of Illinois College of Law  
Valerie Hughes , Partner, Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP; Form er Director, Appellate Body Secretariat, WTO 
Mitsuo Matsushita , Professor Emeritus, Tokyo University; Former Appellate Body Member, WTO  
Andrew L. Stoler , Executive Director, Institute for Internationa l Business, Economics & Law, University of 
Adelaide; Former Deputy Director-General, WTO  
John M. Weekes , Senior Policy Advisor, Sidley Austin LLP; Former Ambassador of Canada to the WTO, and 
Former Chair of the General Council, WTO 
 
Session 4:  "WTO Case Law in International Law Context" 
 
Chair:  Georges Abi-Saab , Appellate Body Member, WTO; Honorary Professor at the Graduate Institute of 
International Studies, Geneva, and at Cairo University Faculty of Law Discussion:  Jose E. Alvarez
, Hamilton Fish Professor of International Law & Diplomacy, Columbia Law 
School  
Florentino P. Feliciano , Senior Associate Justice (Ret.), Supreme C ourt of the Philippines; Former Member and 
Chairman of the Appellate Body , WTO; Senior Counsel, SyCip Sa lazar Hernandez & Gatmaitan  
Pieter-Jan Kuijper , Director-Principal Legal Advisor, European Commission 
Martti Koskenniemi , Professor, Academy of Finland and University of Helsinki  
Patricia M. Wald , Judge (Ret.), US Court of Appeals, and former  judge in the International Criminal Tribunal 
for the Former Yugoslavia  
Dinner and Discussion: 
Managing the Challenges Ahead 
 
Welcome:  David M. Schizer
, Dean and Lucy G. Moses Professor of Law, Columbia Law School  
Chair:  Hugh Patrick , Director, APEC Study Center; R.D. Calkins Pr ofessor of International Business Emeritus, 
Columbia Business School  
Keynote Speakers:  Minister Hyun-Chong Kim  
Christine Lagarde , Minister of Foreign Tr ade, French Republic  
Susan Schwab , Deputy US Trade Representative  
 
Questions and Answers Session:  
Albert Fishlow , Professor of International and Public Affairs;  Director, Institute of Latin American Studies; 
Director, Center for Brazilian Studies, Columbia University 
Arvind Panagariya , Bhagwati Professor of Indian Political Economy, School of International and Public Affairs, 
Columbia University 
Joseph E. Stiglitz , Professor; Executive Director, Initiative for Policy Dialogue, Columbia University 
 WT/AB/7 
Page 44  
 
 Friday, 7 April 2006  
 
Session 5:  "Considering Remedies" 
 
Chair:  Kyle Bagwell , Kelvin J. Lancaster Professor of Econom ic Theory and Profes sor of Economics and 
Finance, Columbia University  
Discussion:  Gary Horlick , Partner, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP  
Robert Lawrence , Albert L. Williams Professor of Internationa l Trade and Investment, John F. Kennedy School 
of Government, Harvard University  
Bruce Wilson , Director, Legal Affairs Division, WTO  
Alan Wolff , Partner, Dewey Ballantine LLP, Washington, DC 
 
Session 6:  "The Dispute Settlement System in the Next Ten Years" 
 
Chair:  Ambassador Julio A. Lacarte  
Discussion:  Steve Charnovitz , Associate Professor, George Washington University Law School  
Robert Howse , Alene & Allan F. Smith Professor of Law,  University of Michigan Law School  
David Palmeter , Senior Council, Sidley Austin LLP, Washington, DC 
Jane Bradley , Adjunct Professor and Deputy Director, Institute  of International Economic Law, Georgetown 
University Law Center 
 
Luncheon and Discussion: 
Expanding Public Awareness of the WTO and Its Work  
 
Welcome:  Charles W. Calomiris , Henry Kaufman Professor of Financial In stitutions in the Faculty of Business, 
Columbia Business School   
Keynote Speakers:  Ernesto Zedillo , Director, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization; Professor in the Field 
of International Economics and Politics, Yale Univers ity; Former President, Federal Republic of Mexico 
Discussant:  Rufus Yerxa , Deputy Director-General, WTO 
 
Session 7:  "Implementation of WTO Rulings:  The Role of Courts and Legisl atures in the United States 
and Other Jurisdictions"  
 
Chair:  Giorgio Sacerdoti , Appellate Body Member, WTO; Professor of International Law and European Law, 
Bocconi University, Milan 
Discussion:  Thomas J. Aquilino, Jr. , Senior Judge, US Court of International Trade 
Professor George A. Bermann  
Donald McRae , Hyman Soloway Chair in Business and Trade Law, University of Ottawa  
Sharyn O'Halloran , George Blumenthal Professor and Professor of Political Science and International and 
Public Affairs, Columbia University 
Ernst-Ulrich Petersmann , Professor of International and European La w, European University Institute, Florence  
 
Session 8:  "Major Themes/Conclusions from the Conferen ce and Reflections on the WTO in the Context 
of Economic Globalization"  
 
Chair:  Grant Aldonas , Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, DC 
Discussion:  Professor John H. Jackson  
Keith Rockwell , Director, Information and Media Relations Division, WTO  
Paul Blustein , Staff Writer, Washington Post  
Seiichi Kondo , Ambassador, International Trade and Economy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Japan  
Martin Wolf , Associate Editor, Chief Economics Commentator, Financial Times  
 
Closing Remark:   Professor Merit E. Janow  
 
_______________ WT/AB/7 
Page 45 
 
 
 ANNEX 8 
 
 
WTO Dispute Settlement Reports and Arbitration Awards:  1995–2006 
 
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Argentina – Ceramic Tiles  Panel Report, Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of 
Ceramic Floor Tiles from Italy , WT/DS189/R, adopted 5 November 2001, 
DSR 2001:XII, 6241 
Argentina – Footwear (EC)  Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of 
Footwear , WT/DS121/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, 515 
Argentina – Footwear (EC)  Panel Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measur es on Imports of Footwear , 
WT/DS121/R, adopted 12 January 2000, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS121/AB/R, DSR 2000:II, 575 
Argentina – Hides and Leather  Panel Report, Argentina – Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and 
Import of Finished Leather , WT/DS155/R and Corr.1, adopted 16 February 2001, 
DSR 2001:V, 1779 
Argentina – Hides and Leather  Award of the Arbitrator, Argentina – Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine 
Hides and Import of Finished Leather – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the 
DSU , WT/DS155/10, 31 August 2001, DSR 2001:XII, 6013 
Argentina – Poultry Anti-
Dumping Duties Panel Report, Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Poultry from 
Brazil , WT/DS241/R, adopted 19 May 2003, DSR 2003:V, 1727 
Argentina – Preserved Peaches  Panel Report, Argentina – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Preserved 
Peaches , WT/DS238/R, adopted 15 April 2003, DSR 2003:III, 1037 
Argentina – Textiles and 
Apparel  Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, 
Textiles, Apparel and Other Items , WT/DS56/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 22 April 
1998, DSR 1998:III, 1003 
Argentina – Textiles and 
Apparel  Panel Report, Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, 
Apparel and Other Items , WT/DS56/R, adopted 22 April 1998, modified by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS56/AB/R, DSR 1998:III, 1033 
Australia – Automotive Leather II
  Panel Report, Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of 
Automotive Leather , WT/DS126/R, adopted 16 June 1999, DSR 1999:III, 951 
Australia – Automotive 
Leather II 
(Article 21.5 – US)  Panel Report, Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of 
Automotive Leather – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States , 
WT/DS126/RW and Corr.1, adopted 11 February 2000, DSR 2000:III, 1189 
Australia – Salmon  Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon , 
WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII, 3327 
Australia – Salmon  Panel Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon , 
WT/DS18/R and Corr.1, adopted 6 November 1998, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS18/AB/R, DSR 1998:VIII, 3407 
Australia – Salmon  Award of the Arbitrator, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon  
– Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS18/9, 23 February 1999, 
DSR 1999:I, 267 
Australia – Salmon  (Article 21.5 – Canada)
  Panel Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon – Recourse 
to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada , WT/DS18/RW, adopted 20 March 2000, 
DSR 2000:IV, 2031 
Brazil – Aircraft  Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft , 
WT/DS46/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1161 WT/AB/7 
Page 46  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Brazil – Aircraft  Panel Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft , WT/DS46/R, 
adopted 20 August 1999, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS46/AB/R, DSR 1999:III, 1221 
Brazil – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Canada)  Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft 
 – Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS46/AB/RW, adopted 
4 August 2000, DSR 2000:VIII, 4067 
Brazil – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Canada)  Panel Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme  for Aircraft – Recourse by 
Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS46/RW, adopted 4 August 2000, 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS46/AB/RW, DSR 2000:IX, 4093 
Brazil – Aircraft  (Article 21.5 – Canada II
 )  Panel Report, Brazil – Export Financing Progr amme for Aircraft – Second 
Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS46/RW/2, adopted 
23 August 2001, DSR 2001:X, 5481 
Brazil – Aircraft  
(Article 22.6 – Brazil)  Decision by the Arbitrators, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft  
– Recourse to Arbitration by Brazil under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement , WT/DS46/ARB, 28 August 2000, DSR 2002:I, 19 
Brazil – Desiccated Coconut  Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Measures Affe cting Desiccated Coconut , 
WT/DS22/AB/R, adopted 20 March 1997, DSR 1997:I, 167 
Brazil – Desiccated Coconut  Panel Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut , WT/DS22/R, 
adopted 20 March 1997, upheld by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS22/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, 189 
Canada – Aircraft  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian 
Aircraft , WT/DS70/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1377 
Canada – Aircraft  Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft , 
WT/DS70/R, adopted 20 August 1999, upheld by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS70/AB/R, DSR 1999:IV, 1443 
Canada – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Brazil)  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian 
Aircraft – Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS70/AB/RW, 
adopted 4 August 2000, DSR 2000:IX, 4299 
Canada – Aircraft  
(Article 21.5 – Brazil)  Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft  
– Recourse by Brazil to Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS70/RW, adopted 
4 August 2000, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS70/AB/RW, DSR 2000:IX, 4315 
Canada – Aircraft Credits and 
Guarantees  Panel Report, Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional 
Aircraft , WT/DS222/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 February 2002, DSR 2002:III, 849 
Canada – Aircraft Credits and 
Guarantees  (Article 22.6 – Canada)
  Decision by the Arbitrator, Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for 
Regional Aircraft – Recourse to Arbitrati on by Canada under Article 22.6 of the 
DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement , WT/DS222/ARB, 17 February 
2003, DSR 2003:III, 1187 
Canada – Autos  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive 
Industry , WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R, adopted 19 June 2000, 
DSR 2000:VI, 2985 
Canada – Autos  Panel Report, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry , 
WT/DS139/R, WT/DS142/R, adopted 19 June 2000, modified by Appellate Body 
Report, WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R, DSR 2000:VII, 3043 
Canada – Autos  Award of the Arbitrator, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive 
Industry – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS139/12, 
WT/DS142/12, 4 October 2000, DSR 2000:X, 5079 WT/AB/7 
Page 47 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Canada – Dairy  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk 
and the Exportation of Dairy Products , WT/DS103/AB/R, WT/DS113/AB/R and 
Corr.1, adopted 27 October 1999, DSR 1999:V, 2057 
Canada – Dairy  Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the 
Exportation of Dairy Products , WT/DS103/R, WT/DS113/R, adopted 27 October 
1999, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS103/AB/R, WT/DS113/AB/R, 
DSR 1999:VI, 2097 
Canada – Dairy  
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand and US)
  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk 
and the Exportation of Dairy Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New Zealand and the United States , WT/DS103/AB/RW, WT/DS113/AB/RW, 
adopted 18 December 2001, DSR 2001:XIII, 6829 
Canada – Dairy  
(Article 21.5 – New Zealand and US)
  Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the 
Exportation of Dairy Products – Recourse  to Article 21.5 of the DSU by New 
Zealand and the United States , WT/DS103/RW, WT/DS113/RW, adopted 
18 December 2001, reversed by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS103/AB/RW, 
WT/DS113/AB/RW, DSR 2001:XIII, 6865 
Canada – Dairy  (Article 21.5 – New Zealand 
and US II)
  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk 
and the Exportation of Dairy Products – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the 
DSU by New Zealand and the United States , WT/DS103/AB/RW2, 
WT/DS113/AB/RW2, adopted 17 January 2003, DSR 2003:I, 213 
Canada – Dairy  (Article 21.5 – New Zealand 
and US II)
  Panel Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the 
Exportation of Dairy Products – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by 
New Zealand and the United States , WT/DS103/RW2, WT/DS113/RW2, adopted 
17 January 2003, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS103/AB/RW2, WT/DS113/AB/RW2, DSR 2003:I, 255 
Canada – Patent Term  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Term of Patent Protection , WT/DS170/AB/R, 
adopted 12 October 2000, DSR 2000:X, 5093 
Canada – Patent Term  Panel Report, Canada – Term of Patent Protection , WT/DS170/R, adopted 
12 October 2000, upheld by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS170/AB/R, 
DSR 2000:XI, 5121 
Canada – Patent Term  Award of the Arbitrator, Canada – Term of Patent Protection – Arbitration under 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS170/10, 28 February 2001, DSR 2001:V, 2031 
Canada – Periodicals  Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals , 
WT/DS31/AB/R, adopted 30 July 1997, DSR 1997:I, 449 
Canada – Periodicals  Panel Report, Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals , WT/DS31/R 
and Corr.1, adopted 30 July 1997, modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS31/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, 481 
Canada – Pharmaceutical Patents
  Panel Report, Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products , 
WT/DS114/R, adopted 7 April 2000, DSR 2000:V, 2289 
Canada – Pharmaceutical 
Patents  Award of the Arbitrator, Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products 
– Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS114/13, 18 August 2000, 
DSR 2002:I, 3 
Canada – Wheat Exports and Grain Imports Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and 
Treatment of Imported Grain , WT/DS276/AB/R, adopted 27 September 2004, 
DSR 2004:VI, 2739 
Canada – Wheat Exports and 
Grain Imports Panel Report, Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of 
Imported Grain , WT/DS276/R, adopted 27 September 2004, upheld by Appellate 
Body Report, WT/DS276/AB/R, DSR 2004:VI, 2817 
Chile – Alcoholic Beverages  Appellate Body Report, Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS87/AB/R, 
WT/DS110/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, 281 WT/AB/7 
Page 48  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Chile – Alcoholic Beverages  Panel Report, Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS87/R, WT/DS110/R, 
adopted 12 January 2000, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS87/AB/R, WT/DS110/AB/R, DSR 2000:I, 303 
Chile – Alcoholic Beverages  Award of the Arbitrator, Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages – Arbitration 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS87/15, WT/DS110/14, 23 May 2000, 
DSR 2000:V, 2583 
Chile – Price Band System  Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures 
Relating to Certain Agricultural Products , WT/DS207/AB/R, adopted 23 October 
2002, DSR 2002:VIII, 3045 
Chile – Price Band System  Panel Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to 
Certain Agricultural Products , WT/DS207/R, adopted 23 October 2002, modified 
by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS207AB/R, DSR 2002:VIII, 3127 
Chile – Price Band System  Award of the Arbitrator, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures 
Relating to Certain Agricultural Products – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS207/13, 17 March 2003, DSR 2003:III, 1237 
Chile – Price Band System 
(Article 21.5 – Argentina) Panel Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to 
Certain Agricultural Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by 
Argentina , WT/DS207/RW and Corr.1, circulated to WTO Members 8 December 
2006 
Dominican Republic – Import 
and Sale of Cigarettes Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the 
Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes , WT/DS302/AB/R, adopted 19 May 
2005 
Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes Panel Report, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and 
Internal Sale of Cigarettes , WT/DS302/R, adopted 19 May 2005, modified by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS302/AB/R 
Dominican Republic – Import 
and Sale of Cigarettes Report of the Arbitrator, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the 
Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes  – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c)  
of the DSU , WT/DS302/17, 29 August 2005 
EC – The ACP-EC 
Partnership Agreement Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – The ACP-EC Partnership 
Agreement – Recourse to Arbitration Purs uant to the Decision of 14 November 
2001 , WT/L/616, 1 August 2005 
EC – The ACP-EC 
Partnership Agreement II Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – The ACP-EC Partnership 
Agreement – Second Recourse to Arbitration Pursuant to the Decision of 
14 November 2001 , WT/L/625, 27 October 2005 
EC – Approval and Marketing 
of Biotech Products Panel Report, European Communities – Measures  Affecting the Approval and 
Marketing of Biotech Products , WT/DS291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R, 
Corr.1 and Add.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, adopted 21 November 2006 
EC – Asbestos  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos 
and Asbestos-Containing Products , WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001, 
DSR 2001:VII, 3243 
EC – Asbestos  Panel Report, European Communities – Measur es Affecting Asbestos and 
Asbestos-Containing Products , WT/DS135/R and Add.1, adopted 5 April 2001, 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS135/AB/R, DSR 2001:VIII, 3305 
EC – Bananas III  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, 
Sale and Distribution of Bananas , WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25 September 1997, 
DSR 1997:II, 591 
EC – Bananas III (Ecuador)  Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas, Complaint by Ecuador , WT/DS27/R/ECU, adopted 
25 September 1997, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS27/AB/R, 
DSR 1997:III, 1085 WT/AB/7 
Page 49 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
EC – Bananas III (Guatemala 
and Honduras)  Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas, Complaint by Guatemala and Honduras , 
WT/DS27/R/GTM, WT/DS27/R/HND, adopted 25 September 1997, modified  
by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:II, 695 
EC – Bananas III (Mexico)  Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas, Complaint by Mexico , WT/DS27/R/MEX, adopted 
25 September 1997, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS27/AB/R, 
DSR 1997:II, 803 
EC – Bananas III (US)  Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas, Complaint by the United States , WT/DS27/R/USA, 
adopted 25 September 1997, modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS27/AB/R, DSR 1997:II, 943 
EC – Bananas III  Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, 
Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , 
WT/DS27/15, 7 January 1998, DSR 1998:I, 3 
EC – Bananas III  
(Article 21.5 – EC)  Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European 
Communities , WT/DS27/RW/EEC and Corr.1, 12 April 1999, unadopted, 
DSR 1999:II, 783 
EC – Bananas III   
(Article 21.5 – Ecuador)  Panel Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador , 
WT/DS27/RW/ECU, adopted 6 May 1999, DSR 1999:II, 803 
EC – Bananas III (Ecuador) 
(Article 22.6 – EC)  Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities – Regime for the 
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Arbitration by the 
European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS27/ARB/ECU, 
24 March 2000, DSR 2000:V, 2237 
EC – Bananas III (US)  (Article 22.6 – EC)
  Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities – Regime for the 
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas – Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS27/ARB, 9 April 
1999, DSR 1999:II, 725 
EC – Bed Linen  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India , WT/DS141/AB/R, adopted 
12 March 2001, DSR 2001:V, 2049 
EC – Bed Linen  Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of 
Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India , WT/DS141/R, adopted 12 March 2001, 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS141/AB/R, DSR 2001:VI, 2077 
EC – Bed Linen  (Article 21.5 – India)
  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from I ndia – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the 
DSU  by India , WT/DS141/AB/RW, adopted 24 April 2003, DSR 2003:III, 965  
EC – Bed Linen  
(Article 21.5 – India)  Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of 
Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU  by 
India , WT/DS141/RW, adopted 24 April 2003, modified by Appellate Body 
Report, WT/DS141/AB/RW, DSR 2003:IV, 1269  
EC – Butter Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Butter Products , 
WT/DS72/R, 24 November 1999, unadopted  
EC – Chicken Cuts Appellate Body Report, European  Communities – Customs Classification of 
Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts , WT/DS269/AB/R, WT/DS286/AB/R, and 
Corr.1, adopted 27 September 2005 WT/AB/7 
Page 50  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
EC – Chicken Cuts (Brazil) Panel Report, European  Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen 
Boneless Chicken Cuts, Complaint by Brazil , WT/DS269/R, adopted 
27 September 2005, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS269/AB/R, 
WT/DS286/AB/R 
EC – Chicken Cuts (Thailand) Panel Report, European  Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen 
Boneless Chicken Cuts, Complaint by Thailand , WT/DS286/R, adopted 
27 September 2005, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS269/AB/R, 
WT/DS286/AB/R 
EC – Chicken Cuts Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – Customs Classification of 
Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , 
WT/DS269/13, WT/DS286/15, 20 February 2006 
EC – Commercial Vessels Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Trade in 
Commercial Vessels , WT/DS301/R, adopted 20 June 2005 
EC – Computer Equipment  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Customs Classification of 
Certain Computer Equipment , WT/DS62/AB/R, WT/DS67/AB/R, 
WT/DS68/AB/R, adopted 22 June 1998, DSR 1998:V, 1851 
EC – Computer Equipment  Panel Report, European Communities – Customs Classification of Certain 
Computer Equipment , WT/DS62/R, WT/DS67/R, WT/DS68/R, adopted 22 June 
1998, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS62/AB/R, WT/DS67/AB/R, 
WT/DS68/AB/R, DSR 1998:V, 1891 
EC – Countervailing 
Measures on DRAM Chips Panel Report, European Communities – Countervailing Measures on Dynamic 
Random Access Memory Chips from Korea , WT/DS299/R, adopted 3 August 
2005 
EC – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar , 
WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R, adopted 19 May 2005 
EC – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar (Australia) Panel Report, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar, Complaint by 
Australia , WT/DS265/R, adopted 19 May 2005, modified by Appellate Body 
Report, WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R 
EC – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar (Brazil) Panel Report, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar, Complaint by 
Brazil , WT/DS266/R, adopted 19 May 2005, modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R 
EC – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar (Thailand) Panel Report, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar, Complaint by 
Thailand , WT/DS283/R, adopted 19 May 2005, modified by Appellate Body 
Report, WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, WT/DS283/AB/R 
EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar – 
Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS265/33, WT/DS266/33, 
WT/DS283/14, 28 October 2005 
EC – Hormones  Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products 
(Hormones) , WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998, 
DSR 1998:I, 135 
EC – Hormones (Canada)  Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), 
Complaint by Canada , WT/DS48/R/CAN, adopted 13 February 1998, modified 
by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, DSR 1998:II, 235 
EC – Hormones (US)  Panel Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), 
Complaint by the United States , WT/DS26/R/USA, adopted 13 February 1998, 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, 
DSR 1998:III, 699 
EC – Hormones  Award of the Arbitrator, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products 
(Hormones) – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS26/15, 
WT/DS48/13, 29 May 1998, DSR 1998:V, 1833 WT/AB/7 
Page 51 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
EC – Hormones (Canada) 
(Article 22.6 – EC)  Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities – Measures Concerning 
Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Original Complaint by Canada – Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU , 
WT/DS48/ARB, 12 July 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1135 
EC – Hormones (US)  
(Article 22.6 – EC)  Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities – Measures Concerning 
Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Original Complaint by the United States 
 – Recourse to Arbitration by the Eur opean Communities under Article 22.6 of the 
DSU , WT/DS26/ARB, 12 July 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1105 
EC – Poultry  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting the 
Importation of Certain Poultry Products , WT/DS69/AB/R, adopted 23 July 1998, 
DSR 1998:V, 2031 
EC – Poultry  Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting the Importation of 
Certain Poultry Products , WT/DS69/R, adopted 23 July 1998, modified by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS69/AB/R, DSR 1998:V, 2089 
EC – Sardines  Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines , 
WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 23 October 2002, DSR 2002:VIII, 3359 
EC – Sardines  Panel Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines , 
WT/DS231/R and Corr.1, adopted 23 October 2002, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS231/AB/R, DSR 2002:VIII, 3451 
EC – Scallops (Canada)  Panel Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Scallops – Request 
by Canada , WT/DS7/R, 5 August 1996, unadopted, DSR 1996:I, 89  
EC – Scallops (Peru and 
Chile)  Panel Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Scallops – Requests 
by Peru  and Chile , WT/DS12/R, WT/DS14/R, 5 August 1996, unadopted, 
DSR 1996:I, 93  
EC – Selected Customs Matters Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Selected Customs Matters , 
WT/DS315/AB/R, adopted 11 December 2006 
EC – Selected Customs Matters Panel Report, European Communities – Selected Customs Matters , WT/DS315/R, 
adopted 11 December 2006, modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS315/AB/R 
EC – Tariff Preferences Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Conditions for the Granting 
of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries , WT/DS246/AB/R, adopted 
20 April 2004, DSR 2004:III, 925 
EC – Tariff Preferences Panel Report, European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff 
Preferences to Developing Countries , WT/DS246/R, adopted 20 April 2004, 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS/246/AB/R, DSR 2004:III, 1009 
EC – Tariff Preferences Award of the Arbitrator, European Communities – Conditions for the Granting 
of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries  – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) 
of the DSU , WT/DS246/14, 20 September 2004, DSR 2004:IX, 4313 
EC – Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications (Australia) Panel Report,  European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, Complaint by Australia , WT/DS290/R, adopted 20 April 2005 
EC – Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications 
(US) Panel Report,  European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, Complaint 
by the United States , WT/DS174/R, adopted 20 April 2005 
EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil , WT/DS219/AB/R, 
adopted 18 August 2003, DSR 2003:VI, 2613 WT/AB/7 
Page 52  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
EC – Tube or Pipe Fittings Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast 
Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil , WT/DS219/R, adopted 18 August 2003, 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS219/AB/R, DSR 2003:VII, 2701 
Egypt – Steel Rebar  Panel Report, Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from 
Turkey , WT/DS211/R, adopted 1 October 2002, DSR 2002:VII, 2667 
Guatemala – Cement I  Appellate Body Report, Guatemala – Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding 
Portland Cement from Mexico , WT/DS60/AB/R, adopted 25 November 1998, 
DSR 1998:IX, 3767 
Guatemala – Cement I  Panel Report, Guatemala – Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Portland 
Cement from Mexico , WT/DS60/R, adopted 25 November 1998, modified by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS60/AB/R, DSR 1998:IX, 3797 
Guatemala – Cement II  Panel Report, Guatemala – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Grey Portland 
Cement from Mexico , WT/DS156/R, adopted 17 November 2000, DSR 2000:XI, 
5295 
India – Autos  Appellate Body Report, India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector , 
WT/DS146/AB/R, WT/DS175/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2002, DSR 2002:V, 1821 
India – Autos  Panel Report, India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector , WT/DS146/R, 
WT/DS175/R and Corr.1, adopted 5 April 2002, DSR 2002:V, 1827 
India – Patents (EC)  Panel Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural 
Chemical Products, Complaint by the European Communities , WT/DS79/R, 
adopted 22 September 1998, DSR 1998:VI, 2661 
India – Patents (US)  Appellate Body Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemical Products , WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998, 
DSR 1998:I, 9 
India – Patents (US)  Panel Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural 
Chemical Products, Complaint by the United States , WT/DS50/R, adopted 
16 January 1998, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS50/AB/R, 
DSR 1998:I, 41 
India – Quantitative 
Restrictions  Appellate Body Report, India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of 
Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products , WT/DS90/AB/R, adopted 
22 September 1999, DSR 1999:IV, 1763 
India – Quantitative Restrictions
  Panel Report, India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile 
and Industrial Products , WT/DS90/R, adopted 22 September 1999, upheld by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS90/AB/R, DSR 1999:V, 1799 
Indonesia – Autos  Panel Report, Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry , 
WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R, WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R and Corr.1, 2, 3 and 4, adopted 23 July 1998, DSR 1998:VI, 2201 
Indonesia – Autos  Award of the Arbitrator, Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile 
Industry – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS54/15, 
WT/DS55/14, WT/DS59/13, WT/DS64/12, 7 December 1998, DSR 1998:IX, 4029 
Japan – Agricultural 
Products II  Appellate Body Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products , 
WT/DS76/AB/R, adopted 19 March 1999, DSR 1999:I, 277 
Japan – Agricultural 
Products II  Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products , WT/DS76/R, 
adopted 19 March 1999, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS76/AB/R, DSR 1999:I, 315 
Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II  Appellate Body Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS8/AB/R, 
WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, DSR 1996:I, 97  WT/AB/7 
Page 53 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II  Panel Report, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS8/R, WT/DS10/R, 
WT/DS11/R, adopted 1 November 1996, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS8/AB/R, WT/DS10/AB/R, WT/DS11/AB/R, DSR 1996:I, 125 
Japan – Alcoholic Beverages II  Award of the Arbitrator, Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages – Arbitration 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS8/15, WT/DS10/15, WT/DS11/13, 
14 February 1997, DSR 1997:I, 3 
Japan – Apples  Appellate Body Report, Japan - Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples , 
WT/DS245/AB/R, adopted 10 December 2003, DSR 2003:IX, 4391 
Japan – Apples  Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples , 
WT/DS245/R, adopted 10 December 2003, upheld by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS245/AB/R, DSR 2003:IX, 4481  
Japan – Apples  
(Article 21.5 – US)  Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples – Recourse 
to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States , WT/DS245/RW, adopted 20 July 
2005 
Japan – Film  Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and 
Paper , WT/DS44/R, adopted 22 April 1998, DSR 1998:IV, 1179 
Japan – Quotas on Laver Panel Report, Japan – Import Quotas on Dried Laver and Seasoned Laver , 
WT/DS323/R, 1 February 2006, unadopted  
Korea – Alcoholic Beverages  Appellate Body Report, Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS75/AB/R, 
WT/DS84/AB/R, adopted 17 February 1999, DSR 1999:I, 3 
Korea – Alcoholic Beverages  Panel Report, Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages , WT/DS75/R, WT/DS84/R, 
adopted 17 February 1999, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS75/AB/R, 
WT/DS84/AB/R, DSR 1999:I, 44 
Korea – Alcoholic Beverages  Award of the Arbitrator, Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages – Arbitration 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS75/16, WT/DS84/14, 4 June 1999, 
DSR 1999:II, 937 
Korea – Certain Paper Panel Report, Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from 
Indonesia , WT/DS312/R, adopted 28 November 2005 
Korea – Commercial Vessels Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels , 
WT/DS273/R, adopted 11 April 2005 
Korea – Dairy  Appellate Body Report, Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports  
of Certain Dairy Products , WT/DS98/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, 
DSR 2000:I, 3 
Korea – Dairy  Panel Report, Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy 
Products , WT/DS98/R and Corr.1, adopted 12 January 2000, modified by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS98/AB/R, DSR 2000:I, 49 
Korea – Procurement  Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Government Procurement , 
WT/DS163/R, adopted 19 June 2000, DSR 2000:VIII, 3541 
Korea – Various Measures on Beef
  Appellate Body Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled 
and Frozen Beef , WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, adopted 10 January 2001, 
DSR 2001:I, 5 
Korea – Various Measures on 
Beef  Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen 
Beef, WT/DS161/R, WT/DS169/R, adopted 10 January 2001, modified by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, DSR 2001:I, 59 
Mexico – Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Rice Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dump ing Measures on Beef 
and Rice, Complaint with Respect to Rice , WT/DS295/AB/R, adopted 
20 December 2005 WT/AB/7 
Page 54  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
Mexico – Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Rice Panel Report, Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Me asures on Beef and Rice, 
Complaint with Respect to Rice , WT/DS295/R, adopted 20 December 2005, 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS295/AB/R 
Mexico – Corn Syrup  Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States , WT/DS132/R and Corr.1, adopted 24 February 
2000, DSR 2000:III, 1345 
Mexico – Corn Syrup  
(Article 21.5 – US)  Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose 
Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU  
by the United States , WT/DS132/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, 
DSR 2001:XIII, 6675 
Mexico – Corn Syrup  
(Article 21.5 – US)  Panel Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU  by the 
United States , WT/DS132/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, upheld by Appellate 
Body Report, WT/DS132/AB/RW, DSR 2001:XIII, 6717 
Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other 
Beverages , WT/DS308/AB/R, adopted 24 March 2006 
Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks Panel Report, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages , 
WT/DS308/R, adopted 24 March 2006, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS308/AB/R 
Mexico – Telecoms Panel Report, Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services , 
WT/DS204/R, adopted 1 June 2004, DSR 2004:IV, 1537 
Thailand – H-Beams  Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and 
Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland , 
WT/DS122/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001, DSR 2001:VII, 2701 
Thailand – H-Beams  Panel Report, Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections 
 of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland , WT/DS122/R, adopted 
5 April 2001, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS122/AB/R, 
DSR 2001:VII, 2741 
Turkey – Textiles  Appellate Body Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing 
Products , WT/DS34/AB/R, adopted 19 November 1999, DSR 1999:VI, 2345 
Turkey – Textiles  Panel Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports  of Textile and Clothing Products , 
WT/DS34/R, adopted 19 November 1999, modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS34/AB/R, DSR 1999:VI, 2363 
US – 1916 Act  Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 , 
WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, adopted 26 September 2000, DSR 2000:X, 4793 
US – 1916 Act (EC)  Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, Complaint by the 
European Communities , WT/DS136/R and Corr.1, adopted 26 September 2000, 
upheld by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, DSR 2000:X, 4593 
US – 1916 Act (Japan)  Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, Complaint by Japan , 
WT/DS162/R and Add.1, adopted 26 September 2000, upheld by Appellate Body 
Report, WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, DSR 2000:X, 4831 
US – 1916 Act  Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 – Arbitration 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS136/11, WT/DS162/14, 28 February 
2001, DSR 2001:V, 2017 
US – 1916 Act (EC)  
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrators, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, Original 
Complaint by the European Communities – Recourse to Arbitration by the United 
States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS136/ARB, 24 February 2004, DSR 
2004:IX, 4269 WT/AB/7 
Page 55 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Anti-Dumping Measures 
on Oil Country Tubular Goods Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country 
Tubular Goods (OCTG) from Mexico , WT/DS282/AB/R, adopted 28 November 
2005  
US – Anti-Dumping Measures 
on Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular 
Goods (OCTG) from Mexico , WT/DS282/R, adopted 28 November 2005, 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS282/AB/R 
US – Carbon Steel  Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany , 
WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 December 2002, DSR 2002:IX, 3779 
US – Carbon Steel  Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany , WT/DS213/R and Corr.1, 
adopted 19 December 2002, modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1, DSR 2002:IX, 3833 
US – Certain EC Products  Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Measures on Certain Products 
from the European Communities , WT/DS165/AB/R, adopted 10 January 2001, 
DSR 2001:I, 373 
US – Certain EC Products  Panel Report, United States – Import Measures on Certain Products from the 
European Communities , WT/DS165/R and Add.1, adopted 10 January 2001, 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS165/AB/R, DSR 2001:II, 413 
US – Corrosion-Resistant 
Steel Sunset Review  Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties 
on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan , 
WT/DS244/AB/R, adopted 9 January 2004, DSR 2004:I, 3  
US – Corrosion-Resistant 
Steel Sunset Review  Panel Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan , WT/DS244/R, 
adopted 9 January 2004, modified by Appellate Body Report, WTDS244/AB/R, 
DSR 2004:I, 85  
US – Cotton Yarn  Appellate Body Report, United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on 
Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan , WT/DS192/AB/R, adopted 5 November 
2001, DSR 2001:XII, 6027 
US – Cotton Yarn  Panel Report, United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton 
Yarn from Pakistan , WT/DS192/R, adopted 5 November 2001, modified by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS192/AB/R, DSR 2001:XII, 6067 
US – Countervailing Duty 
Investigation on DRAMS Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on 
Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea , 
WT/DS296/AB/R, adopted 20 July 2005 
US – Countervailing Duty 
Investigation on DRAMS Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea , WT/DS296/R, 
adopted 20 July 2005, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS296/AB/R 
US – Countervailing Measures on Certain EC Products  Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning 
Certain Products from the European Communities , WT/DS212/AB/R, adopted 
8 January 2003, DSR 2003:I, 5 
US – Countervailing Measures 
on Certain EC Products  Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain 
Products from the European Communities , WT/DS212/R, adopted 8 January 
2003, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS212/AB/R, DSR 2003:I, 73 
US – Countervailing Measures 
on Certain EC Products 
(Article 21.5 – EC) Panel Report, United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain 
Products from the European Communities – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU 
by the European Communities , WT/DS212/RW, adopted 27 September 2005 
US – DRAMS  Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea , 
WT/DS99/R, adopted 19 March 1999, DSR 1999:II, 521 WT/AB/7 
Page 56  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – DRAMS  
(Article 21.5 – Korea)  Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Korea , WT/DS99/RW, 7 November 2000, 
unadopted  
US – Export Restraints  Panel Report, United States – Measures Treating Exports Restraints as 
Subsidies , WT/DS194/R and Corr.2, adopted 23 August 2001, DSR 2001:XI, 
5767 
US – FSC  Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" , WT/DS108/AB/R, adopted 20 March 2000, DSR 2000:III, 1619 
US – FSC  Panel Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" , 
WT/DS108/R, adopted 20 March 2000, modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS108/AB/R, DSR 2000:IV, 1675 
US – FSC  
(Article 21.5 – EC)  Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" – Recourse to Articl e 21.5 of the DSU by the European 
Communities , WT/DS108/AB/RW, adopted 29 January 2002, DSR 2002:I, 55 
US – FSC  
(Article 21.5 – EC)  Panel Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"  
– Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities , 
WT/DS108/RW, adopted 29 January 2002, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS108/AB/RW, DSR 2002:I, 119 
US – FSC  
(Article 21.5 – EC II) Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European 
Communities , WT/DS108/AB/RW2, adopted 14 March 2006 
US – FSC  
(Article 21.5 – EC II) Panel Report, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" 
 – Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities , 
WT/DS108/RW2, adopted 14 March 2006, upheld by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS108/AB/RW2 
US – FSC  
(Article 22.6 – US)  Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations" – Recourse to Arbitrati on by the United States under Article 22.6 
of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement , WT/DS108/ARB, 30 August 
2002, DSR 2002:VI, 2517 
US – Gambling Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border 
Supply of Gambling and Betting Services , WT/DS285/AB/R, adopted 20 April 
2005 
US – Gambling Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of 
Gambling and Betting Services , WT/DS285/R, adopted 20 April 2005, modified 
by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS285/AB/R 
US – Gambling Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border 
Supply of Gambling and Betting Services – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS285/13, 19 August 2005 
US – Gasoline  Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and 
Conventional Gasoline , WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996, DSR 1996:I, 3 
US – Gasoline  Panel Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional 
Gasoline , WT/DS2/R, adopted 20 May 1996, modified by Appellate Body 
Report, WT/DS2/AB/R, DSR 1996:I, 29 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel  Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain  
Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan , WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 23 August 
2001, DSR 2001:X, 4697 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel  Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled 
Steel Products from Japan , WT/DS184/R, adopted 23 August 2001 modified by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS184/AB/R, DSR 2001:X, 4769 WT/AB/7 
Page 57 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Hot-Rolled Steel  Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain  
Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS184/13, 19 February 2002, DSR 2002:IV, 1389 
US – Lamb  Appellate Body Report, United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, 
Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia , 
WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, adopted 16 May 2001, DSR 2001:IX, 4051 
US – Lamb  Panel Report, United States – Safeguard Measures  on Imports of Fresh, Chilled 
or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia , WT/DS177/R, 
WT/DS178/R, adopted 16 May 2001, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, DSR 2001:IX, 4107 
US – Lead and Bismuth II  Appellate Body Report, United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on 
Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the 
United Kingdom , WT/DS138/AB/R, adopted 7 June 2000, DSR 2000:V, 2595 
US – Lead and Bismuth II  Panel Report, United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain 
Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United 
Kingdom , WT/DS138/R and Corr.2, adopted 7 June 2000, upheld by Appellate 
Body Report, WT/DS138/AB/R, DSR 2000:VI, 2623 
US – Line Pipe  Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Circular Welded Car bon Quality Line Pipe from Korea , 
WT/DS202/AB/R, adopted 8 March 2002, DSR 2002:IV, 1403 
US – Line Pipe  Panel Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of 
Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea , WT/DS202/R, adopted 
8 March 2002, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS202/AB/, 
DSR 2002:IV, 1473 
US – Line Pipe  Report of the Arbitrator, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality  Line Pipe from Korea – Arbitration 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS202/17, 26 July 2002, DSR 2002:V, 
2061 
US – Offset Act  (Byrd Amendment
 ) Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act of 2000 , WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R, adopted 27 January 2003, 
DSR 2003:I, 375 
US – Offset Act  
(Byrd Amendment ) Panel Report, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 
2000 , WT/DS217/R, WT/DS234/R, adopted 27 January 2003, modified by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R, DSR 2003:II, 489 
US – Offset Act  
(Byrd Amendment ) Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act of 2000 – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS217/14, 
WT/DS234/22, 13 June 2003, DSR 2003:III, 1163 
US – Offset Act  (Byrd Amendment) (Brazil) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by Brazil – Recourse to Arbitration by the 
United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS217/ARB/BRA, 31 August 
2004, DSR 2004:IX, 4341 
US – Offset Act  (Byrd Amendment) (Canada) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by Canada – Recourse to Arbitration by 
the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS234/ARB/CAN, 
31 August 2004, DSR 2004:IX, 4425 
US – Offset Act  
(Byrd Amendment) (Chile) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by Chile – Recourse to Arbitration by the 
United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS217/ARB/CHL, 31 August 
2004, DSR 2004:IX, 4511 WT/AB/7 
Page 58  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Offset Act  
(Byrd Amendment) (EC) (Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by the European Communities – Recourse to Arbitration by the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , 
WT/DS217/ARB/EEC, 31 August 2004, DSR 2004:IX, 4591 
US – Offset Act  
(Byrd Amendment) (India) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by  India – Recourse to Arbitration by the 
United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS217/ARB/IND, 31 August 
2004, DSR 2004:X, 4691 
US – Offset Act  (Byrd Amendment) (Japan) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by  Japan – Recourse to Arbitration by the 
United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS217/ARB/JPN, 31 August 
2004, DSR 2004:X, 4771 
US – Offset Act  (Byrd Amendment) (Korea) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by  Korea – Recourse to Arbitration by the 
United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS217/ARB/KOR, 31 August 
2004, DSR 2004:X,4851 
US – Offset Act  (Byrd Amendment) (Mexico) 
(Article 22.6 – US) Decision by the Arbitrator, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, Original Complaint by  Mexico – Recourse to Arbitration by 
the United States under Article 22.6 of the DSU , WT/DS234/ARB/MEX, 
31 August 2004, DSR 2004:X,4931 
US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina , WT/DS268/AB/R, 
adopted 17 December 2004, DSR 2004:VII, 3257 
US – Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Sunset Reviews Panel Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil 
Country Tubular Goods from Argentina , WT/DS268/R and Corr.1, adopted 
17 December 2004, modified by Appellate Body Report, W/DS/268/AB/R, DSR 
2004:VIII, 3421 
US – Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Sunset Reviews Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods  from Argentina – Arbitration under 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS268/12, 7 June 2005 
US – Oil Country Tubular 
Goods Sunset Reviews  (Article 21.5 – Argentina) Panel Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil 
Country Tubular Goods from Argentina – Re course to Article 21.5 of the DSU by 
Argentina , WT/DS268/RW, circulated to WTO Members 30 November 2006 
[appealed on 12 January 2007] 
US – Section 110(5) Copyright 
Act Panel Report, United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act , 
WT/DS160/R, adopted 27 July 2000, DSR 2000:VIII, 3769 
US – Section 110(5) Copyright Act Award of the Arbitrator, United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act  
– Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , WT/DS160/12, 15 January 2001, 
DSR 2001:II, 657 
US – Section 110(5) Copyright 
Act (Article 25.3)  Award of the Arbitrators, United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act 
– Recourse to Arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU , WT/DS160/ARB25/1, 
9 November 2001, DSR 2001:II, 667 
US – Section 129(c)(1) URAA  Panel Report, United States – Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act , WT/DS221/R, adopted 30 August 2002, DSR 2002:VII, 2581 
US – Section 211 
Appropriations Act  Appellate Body Report, United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations 
Act of 1998 , WT/DS176/AB/R, adopted 1 February 2002, DSR 2002:II, 589 
US – Section 211 
Appropriations Act  Panel Report, United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 , 
WT/DS176/R, adopted 1 February 2002, modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS176/AB/R, DSR 2002:II, 683 WT/AB/7 
Page 59 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Section 301 Trade Act  Panel Report, United States – Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974 , 
WT/DS152/R, adopted 27 January 2000, DSR 2000:II, 815 
US – Shrimp  Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and 
Shrimp Products , WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VII, 
2755 
US – Shrimp  Panel Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp 
Products , WT/DS58/R and Corr.1, adopted 6 November 1998, modified by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS58/AB/R, DSR 1998:VII, 2821 
US – Shrimp  
(Article 21.5 – Malaysia)  Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp 
 and Shrimp Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia , 
WT/DS58/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, DSR 2001:XIII, 6481 
US – Shrimp  
(Article 21.5 – Malaysia)  Panel Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp 
Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia , WT/DS58/RW, 
adopted 21 November 2001, upheld by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS58/AB/RW, DSR 2001:XIII, 6529 
US – Softwood Lumber III  Panel Report, United States – Preliminary Determinations with Respect to Certain 
Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS236/R, adopted 1 November 2002, 
DSR 2002:IX, 3597 
US – Softwood Lumber IV  Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination 
with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS257/AB/R, 
adopted 17 February 2004, DSR 2004:II, 571 
US – Softwood Lumber IV Panel Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with 
Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS257/R and Corr.1, 
adopted 17 February 2004, modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS257/AB/R, DSR 2004:II, 641  
US – Softwood Lumber IV 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination 
with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse by Canada to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU , WT/DS257/AB/RW, adopted 20 December 2005  
US – Softwood Lumber IV 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Panel Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with 
Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 [of the DSU] , WT/DS257/RW, adopted 20 December 2005 , upheld 
by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS257/AB/RW 
US – Softwood Lumber V  Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on 
Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS264/AB/R, adopted 31 August 2004, 
DSR 2004:V, 1875 
US – Softwood Lumber V  Panel Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber 
from Canada , WT/DS264/R, adopted 31 August 2004, modified by Appellate 
Body Report, WT/DS264/AB/R, DSR 2004:V, 1937 
US – Softwood Lumber V  Report of the Arbitrator, United States – Final Dumping Determination on 
Softwood Lumber from Canada – Arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU , 
WT/DS264/13, 13 December 2004, DSR 2004:X, 5011 
US – Softwood Lumber V  
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on 
Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada , 
WT/DS264/AB/RW, adopted 1 September 2006 
US – Softwood Lumber V  
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Panel Report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber 
from Canada – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada , WT/DS264/RW, 
adopted 1 September 2006, reversed  by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS264/AB/RW WT/AB/7 
Page 60  
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Softwood Lumber VI  Panel Report, United States – Investigation of the International Trade 
Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada , WT/DS277/R, adopted 26 April 
2004, DSR 2004:VI, 2485 
US – Softwood Lumber VI 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Appellate Body Report, United States – Investigation of the International Trade 
Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the 
DSU by Canada , WT/DS277/AB/RW, adopted 9 May 2006  
US – Softwood Lumber VI 
(Article 21.5 – Canada) Panel Report, United States – Investigation of the International Trade 
Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the 
DSU by Canada , WT/DS277/RW, adopted 9 May 2006, modified by Appellate 
Body Report, WT/DS277/AB/RW  
US – Stainless Steel  Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in 
Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea , WT/DS179/R, adopted 
1 February 2001, DSR 2001:IV, 1295 
US – Steel Plate  Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on 
Steel Plate from India , WT/DS206/R and Corr.1, adopted 29 July 2002, 
DSR 2002:VI, 2073 
US – Steel Safeguards Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Certain Steel Products , WT/DS248/AB/R, WT/DS249/AB/R, 
WT/DS251/AB/R, WT/DS252/AB/R, WT /DS253/AB/R, WT/DS254/AB/R, 
WT/DS258/AB/R, WT/DS259/AB/R , adopted 10 December 2003, 
DSR 2003:VII, 3117  
US – Steel Safeguards Panel Reports, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of 
Certain Steel Products , WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R, WT/DS251/R, 
WT/DS252/R, WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R, WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R, and 
Corr.1, adopted 10 December 2003, m odified by Appella te Body Report, 
WT/DS248/AB/R, WT/DS249/AB/R, WT /DS251/AB/R, WT/DS252/AB/R, 
WT/DS253/AB/R, WT/DS254/AB/R, WT /DS258/AB/R, WT/DS259/AB/R, 
DSR 2003:VIII, 3273  
US – Textiles Rules of Origin Panel Report, United States – Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel Products , 
WT/DS243/R and Corr.1, adopted 23 July 2003, DSR 2003:VI, 2309 
US – Underwear  Appellate Body Report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and 
Man-made Fibre Underwear , WT/DS24/AB/R, adopted 25 February 1997, 
DSR 1997:I, 11 
US – Underwear  Panel Report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-made 
Fibre Underwear , WT/DS24/R, adopted 25 February 1997, modified by 
Appellate Body Report, WT/DS24/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, 31 
US – Upland Cotton Appellate Body Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton , 
WT/DS267/AB/R, adopted 21 March 2005 
US – Upland Cotton Panel Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton , WT/DS267/R, and 
Corr.1, adopted 21 March 2005, modified by Appellate Body Report, 
WT/DS267/AB/R 
US – Wheat Gluten  Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities , WT/DS166/AB/R, 
adopted 19 January 2001, DSR 2001:II, 717 
US – Wheat Gluten  Panel Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat 
Gluten from the European Communities , WT/DS166/R, adopted 19 January 2001, 
modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS166/AB/R, DSR 2001:III, 779 
US – Wool Shirts and Blouses  Appellate Body Report, United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven 
Wool Shirts and Blouses from India , WT/DS33/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 
23 May 1997, DSR 1997:I, 323 WT/AB/7 
Page 61 
 
 
 Short Title Full Case Title and Citation 
US – Wool Shirts and Blouses  Panel Report, United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts 
and Blouses from India , WT/DS33/R, adopted 23 May 1997, upheld by Appellate 
Body Report, WT/DS33/AB/R, DSR 1997:I, 343 
US – Zeroing (EC) Appellate Body Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for 
Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") , WT/DS294/AB/R, adopted 9 May 
2006 
US – Zeroing (EC) Panel Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for 
Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") , WT/DS294/R, adopted 9 May 
2006, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS294/AB/R 
US – Zeroing (Japan) Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and 
Sunset Reviews , WT/DS322/AB/R, circulated to WTO Members 9 January 
2007 [adoption pending at time of circulation of this Annual Report] 
US – Zeroing (Japan) Panel Report, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset 
Reviews , WT/DS322/R, circulated to WTO Members 20 September 2006 
[adoption pending at time of circulation of this Annual Report] 
 
 
__________